My Favorite Commenter
There is a guy who comments every now and then on our pastors blog. I look forward to reading what he has to say because of his gentleness and wisdom. The following is a comment he recently made which I thought was especially good. I think the comment can stand alone but if your interested in the original post her it is.
Bart said:
It seems sad to me that the discussion about the church’s response to the poor and needy has become a source of debate. The manner in which positions are presented are at times presented is frequently denigrating to the other side.
Upon reflection I believe that the problem in this debate is not unlike the problem I see in many others. For a debate to be resolved we must first begin by establishing rules for resolution, or by establishing an agreed upon standard of measure which shall be utilized to judge the positions put forth.
One could say that scripture defines the rules, yet each side seems to find no shortage of verses to support their argument. What then can be done? I believe that what is necessary is to make sure that we begin not just with scripture, but with the purpose of all scripture. If we start with that which is most essential and then build upon that foundation, perhaps we can reach a better understanding.
Brian was touching on this issue in his messages on missional living. The primary purpose for all things is the Glory of God. The primary means by which God is glorified in this world is through His merciful redemption of sinful man. The primary means by which we glorify God is through the proclamation of His glory in this plan of redemption, and the living of redeemed lives. This is consistent with the great mission given to the church, to make disciples of all men.
So when we discuss any activity or action of the church, we must do so by evaluating its impact in achieving the primary purpose of the church, the glorification of God by the propagation of the gospel message.
As we do so we will quickly discover that there is a difference between the mission of the church and things which are means by which the mission is achieved. As we prioritize our behaviors and as we establish mandates for action, it must be with an understanding of the differentiation.
There are activities that are indisputably consistent with the church’s mission and therefore never called into question (Bible teaching, loving one another, evangelism). There are then a number of things that are a means for accomplishing the mission, but do not in and of themselves constitute the mission. Examples of such things include youth trips, church socials, and (I believe) aid to the poor and needy outside of the church. These latter activities are usually, but not always, consistent with the church’s mission. They therefore should not be put forth as being the primary mission of the church.
If we think about the discussion and the articles reviewed we can see that this is the core of the dispute. There are a number of people who believe that helping the poor and needy in the community and the world should be listed as part of the primary mission of the church. A look at the activities cited in the various articles puts this in perspective. These activities included, oil changes for poor women, bicycle repair, and tutoring and mentoring. An honest person would admit that although these may be tools and means by which doors may be opened to the gospel, they do not in and of themselves achieve the propagation of the church’s mission. In fact, unless intentional steps are taken, these actions have a significant probability of failing the mission.
It is for this reason I believe that many are so uneasy about the emphasis on “mercy ministry”.
Before anyone says that I oppose mercy ministry, let me reiterate that it is one of many tools that are used to achieve God’s glory through Gospel proclamation.
Let me illustrate. If a church desires to reach single mom’s for Christ, it may start by saying, “Is there a need in the single mom community which we as a church can meet, that if met will open a door for the gospel message?” The answer may be, “Let’s have an oil changing day!” I think this is an excellent example of missional living acted out in serving the community.
The only difference in my approach is that when the oil-changing day was over a church with an appropriate sense of mission would evaluate whether or not doors for the gospel were indeed opened. If not, a new approach would be taken. Why? Because serving single moms is not the end goal. Reaching them with the gospel is. It is this distinction between mission and means that must be considered.
This is important, because as I stated once in a previous post, there will always be more needs in our community and our world than we can meet. It is possible that we could get so caught up trying to meet these needs that we would lose sight of our true objective. It is this danger which I believe drives the concern in those less enthusiastic about mercy ministry.
We are a part if a generation that has put a low priority on personal holiness, prayer, and study of Scripture. The overwhelming majority of purported believers has never shared their faith and would be paralyzed with fear if called upon to do so. Yet all of these things are a part of the primary mission of the church! As we as a church do these things, we will be led by the Spirit to reach out to others in amazing ways. We will be serving our community and our culture, but we will be doing so in a way that results in a greater knowledge of the gospel, and thus the glory of God.
If we do not pray, do not deal with the sin in our lives, are not true disciples with a knowledge of scripture, and do not strive to share our faith, no amount of community service will make up for our failure.
“If we do not pray, do not deal with the sin in our lives, are not true disciples with a knowledge of scripture, and do not strive to share our faith, no amount of community service will make up for our failure.”
I totally agree with this persons last statement. As a church (the church body) this needs to be taught. Otherwise we are doing those services in our own will, it maybe the right motive and the right heart but its not gonna give ALL the glory to our Lord Jesus Christ.
Mike Brisk
6 Dec 06 at 1:01 pm
Hmm… I had never thought of it as one at the expense of the other.
I think serving God and serving other people are pretty much inseparable. “Loving one another” is listed above as a non-negotiable part of the church’s mission, and I wholeheartedly agree with that.
While I’d also agree that our primary focus or aim in serving others should be to lead or help them get closer to Christ, I don’t by any means consider those acts of service to be a failure if the person being helped doesn’t end up accepting Christ as a directly or immediately observable result of our actions.
I believe we are called to love other people as Christ did. Christ (while He was on the earth) loved and served a whole lot of people who did not accept him. In life, he spent most of his time with a small group of men, one of whom he even knew was going to betray him. In death, he offered his life in an extension of forgiveness, knowing that many/most people would not accept that gift. If we were to analyze his steps in our lens of “effective” ministry, I wonder whether we would find more productive ways in which he could have used that limited time on earth?
Our efforts to serve others in any way (including reaching them with the gospel) should be motivated by love for them; the love that Christ has for them flowing through us, regardless of whether they are likely to reciprocate that love.
I would submit that if we do not have this kind of love, we have nothing. As Paul said, whether we are preaching, serving the poor, moving mountains, or even fulfilling the great commission, it means nothing without love.
I think people can really tell when someone is serving them because of a supernatural love that has welled up in the heart of the servant for them (regardless of the likelihood of a successful “conversion”), and are likely to be inspired by such love to seek out its source. I think people can also tell when they are being “served” out of duty, or even as a pretext or set-up for a presentation. I think the two feel very different to both the servant and the recipient, and I can’t imagine the latter to be more likely to eventually serve that purpose.
I’m not implying that anyone here is advocating the latter type of approach, but I do think there is a danger of falling into that if we are going to hold back from serving and first be sure that there will be an avenue for “sharing the gospel” (or more specifically, an avenue that we can perceive / plan, which may be a bit presumptive on our parts). Is there a danger in going the other way as well, and losing sight of the foundational message of the gospel? Of course, but I think we should always be careful not to swing the pendulum back too far the other way.
For a church to go through the oil-changing exercise described above and then evaluate at the end of the day whether or not it was successful in terms of opening the doors for the gospel is an interesting theory, but one I do not fully understand. How would this evaluation take place? Is the requirement that the recipient of the service is presented with a complete outline of the gospel while they wait? Or does it go beyond that to actually witnessing her acceptance of that truth? If so, that’s a stringent guideline, and if not, then how do you really know whether you were “effective”, in that sense?
Hopefully that all didn’t come off as too argumentative. If so, I do apologize. I think it’s apparent that everyone who’s posted so far here does have an honest desire to serve God and (in doing so) serve others. I would just hate to get to a place where I would avoid serving those who (in my eyes) would be unlikely to accept my presentation of the gospel. That is ultimately a much greater danger, in my opinion, because Christ often chooses some of the most unlikely “targets” - even me.
JaredB
6 Dec 06 at 10:54 pm
Of course our service of others will flow out of a deep love for people and we would agree that love is only possible through God living in each one of us. Like the sentence that Mike quoted said, if we are faithful to do those first 4 things loving others in and out side the church will be inevitable. I’ve prayed and thought a lot about the example of Jesus life lately because of conversations with some JW’s and come to the conclusion that yes He served many who didn’t except Him but service was not His primary mission on earth it was to proclaim to the Jewish people that He was the foretold messiah and salvation would only come through faith in Him. Like Bart said, Jesus commanded us to go and make disciples of every nation. As we love and serve others we need to be purposeful in sharing the gospel, just loving and serving is not enough. As far as judging the effectiveness, if a ministry provides opportunity to build personal relationships with people than it has been profitable. Loving friendships will inevitable lead to sharing what is most important in our lives, Jesus Christ. I think any church or person truly seeking to live out the biblical mandates will diligently seek God in prayer before any ministry is ever even begun. The Bible is clear in what we are to pray for, prayer for Godly wisdom, prayer for doors to be opened for the gospel, boldness in sharing the gospel, for the Lord to provided laborers, for an abundance of love and the list can go on. Whats so awesome is God will be faithful to answer these prayers and give direction for church’s and individuals.
By the way it wasn’t to argumentative and even if it was I still would appreciate what you had to say.
I’m not sure what this comment is in reference to.
“Hmm… I had never thought of it as one at the expense of the other.”
Kristen
7 Dec 06 at 5:00 pm
I believe that what was meant was not that a ministry is only effective if people are saved, but rather that it is only effective if the gospel message is told.
It seems to me, that the question that has to be answered is how is a true love for others actualized? Can you truly love someone by serving them and then sending them off without giving them a chance to have salvation, the only thing in life of any consequence? You could give a single mom a free oil change, or give a hungry kid a meal, or a homeless man shelter, but what good is it if they die with their physical needs met just to spend eternity suffering.
I agree with you Jared that there is a noticeable difference between a person who’s service for others stems from the love of God and a person who’s service for others stems from a sense of duty. I guess I just wonder if a person who’s service truly comes from a supernatural love for others can serve someone and pass up the opportunity to tell them about the greatest good that exists.
Nick
7 Dec 06 at 11:15 pm
I agree, its comes down to what Jared and Nick just said, “there is a noticeable difference between a person who’s service for others stems from the love of God and a person who’s service for others stems from a sense of duty.” The love that comes from God has power and salvation, I would say both physical and eternal. His love is the only love that will have a impact eternally. God’s love is the basis for all things, his love is perfect.
Mike Brisk
8 Dec 06 at 5:27 pm
Nick, you’ve gotten to the heart of my original comment. Since someone in whom the supernatural love of God dwells and inspires acts of service will (or should) always be motivated towards sharing the gospel with the people they are loving and serving, then I see no need for the pre and/or post evaluation of the particular oil change situation.
Living by the principle you suggested (which I totally agree with) would always result in the gospel being shared, so in what case would the proposed evaluation ever produce a negative conclusion (meaning don’t bother doing it)?
The only situation I could ever see would be if the particular act of service was deemed to be an impractical / infeasible opportunity to “present the message of the gospel”. We could debate what that means in whole and in part, but I’m assuming we’re talking about verbally (or otherwise) conveying a complete message of the gospel to that person.
Perhaps these are the situations in question, and I guess that would be where I may have a differing opinion. For one thing, I would believe there are often more opportunities for sharing the gospel than we perceive, and I would still count partial steps towards that goal (even if not “complete”) are still valuable.
I’d go farther and say that even if it were a situation in which virtually no clear communication (in terms of “preaching” or otherwise verbally “witnessing”) could be accomplished that to dismiss such an opportunity for serving another out of love would not be a decision that I could see being made, if there truly is a heart of love for the recipient of that service.
Just because the sharing of the truth of the gospel is the ultimate act of love does not mean that all other acts are inconsequential and should not be pursued. If you were to pull up behind someone stalled in the middle of a busy lane on the 405, with a sign in their window saying “need gas” while you had a spare portable gas tank, what would be the Christian thing to do? It’s very likely that in such a rushed situation you would not have the opportunity to effectively communicate the complete message of the gospel to them, so should you not waste your time, and instead swerve around them and get to your destination 10 minutes sooner and use that extra time in a situation in which the message could be more easily preached?
Of course, that’s an extreme situation, but I think you get my point. I think we’d all agree that our goal should be to share God’s love in every possible way in every possible situation, putting a clear priority on sharing the truth of the gospel with people. With that in mind, I would suggest that serving others almost always provides the most prime opportunities for doing that, so it would be difficult for me to imagine a situation (like the one mentioned above) where it would be determined that we shouldn’t do it after such an evaluation, given a motivation of love in the first place. That’s what I meant by the “one at the expense of the other”, or I probably should have said “one without the other”. As Nick said, I don’t see that happening.
JaredB
9 Dec 06 at 11:11 pm
I agree with you Jared. I guess my frustration is in often hearing things like we just need to love others. At this point in my life I feel like that’s not good enough. An example in my personal life right now is our desire to reach out to our neighbors. I want to build meaningful relationships with them and through that they will probably find out that we are Christians. To me, leaving it at that is not good enough, at some point my conviction would lead me to specifically share the message of salvation.
Kristen
10 Dec 06 at 8:58 am
Yeah, that makes sense. I agree with you, and probably (like Nick said) because you love them, you will do that.
JaredB
10 Dec 06 at 9:00 pm