A Brief History of Mercy Ministry in the Church - Part Three

This is part Three of Three posts in a series on the history of Mercy Ministry in the Christian Church. Part One is accessible here.  Part Two can be found here.

After introducing the topic and giving a brief overview of Mercy Ministry in the Early Church, Patristic Era, Medieval Era and Reformation Era, today's post emphasizes the Modern era, bringing the discussion up to the present time. 

---

Photo by Amir Farshad Ebrahimi. Used under creative commons license. http://ow.ly/IHxpd 

As a reaction to the religious wars of the Reformation Era, Deism began to rise and people began to try to demonstrate that non-Christians could be ethical, too. Divisions began to form between Church and State, with none starker than the division in France due to the French Revolution. When the church and state split, the larger political organization rose as a more significant participant in what had previously been the church’s role in dealing with physical needs.

 The roots of modern evangelicalism are in British non-conformist religion. The four central aspects of early evangelicalism were conversionism, crucicentrism, biblicism and activism.[1] The key for today’s discussion is activism, which refers to the belief that the internal change brought about by gospel conversion would be worked out in external application of the gospel to life. It was this tendency toward activism that led William Carey to build businesses to improve the local economy in India, end injustices like the burning of widows, and start schools instead of only preaching the gospel. This also drove people like William Wilberforce and John Newton to fight for the abolition of slavery.

 It about the same time as the rise of evangelicalism that the higher critical approach to Scripture was developed. Faith became subjective, the integrity of the Bible was frequently questioned by Friedrich Schleiermacher, Julius Wellhausen, and others. Deism became increasingly accepted through the work of individuals like Thomas Paine. In summary, people began to doubt the central truths of Christianity, but retained their desire for the works of the Christian religion. As a result, mercy ministry began to take precedence over doctrine. Later, liberal theologians such as Walter Rauschenbusch began to promote the idea that the Kingdom of God was a condition of earthly justice that had no true doctrinal content.

 Unfortunately, the morals of the church cannot stand without a doctrinal foundation. Individuals like J. Gresham Machen, B. B. Warfield, and Charles Hodge resisted the discrediting of Scripture. Others reacted more strongly against the doctrinal decay of the theological liberals by rejecting the social aspect of ministry. This led to the rise of fundamentalism, particularly in the United States, which promoted doctrinal truth and evangelism without significant concerns for mercy ministry. This overreaction was a divergence from the central traditions of Christianity and the resurgence of an interest in mercy ministry among doctrinally conservative Christians should be seen as a course correction not an innovation.

Carl F. H. Henry

 Carl F. H. Henry’s brief but significant book, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, speaks about the loss of social ministry among theologically fundamental Christians: “The social reform movements dedicated to the elimination of such evils do not have the active, let alone vigorous, cooperation of large segments of evangelical Christianity.”[2] That reality began to change in the mid Twentieth Century as some theologians began to shift the language from doing missions (which focus only or mainly on saving souls) to mission (which focuses on participating in God’s redemptive work in all creation).

Recently there has been an explosion in conferences, sermons, and books on the topic of Mercy Ministry. Evangelicalism has largely recovered its vision for working out the implications of the gospel in the world. Our task on our External Journey, with this cloud of witness in history behind us, is proclaim the gospel while we are serving them. Or, to enable them to hear our proclamation because we have met their physical needs.

“ [S]ome can’t hear our proclamation [of the Gospel] until they’ve been delivered physically from injustice and other forms of suffering. Until we pick them up from the road, they won’t hear of the good news. Today, millions are being drugged, sold, and raped multiple times a day in sex trafficking. Do you think they will hear your proclamation? I don’t.[3]”

[1] David Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (New York: Routledge, 1989), 5.

[2] Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1947), 3.

[3] Tony Merida, Ordinary: How to Turn the World Upside Down (Nashville, Tenn.: B & H, 2015), 29.

Jabberwocky

by Lewis Carroll

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
   Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogroves,
   and the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
   The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
   The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
    Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
   And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
   The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
   And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
   The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
   He went galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
   Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh, Callay!"
   He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
   Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogroves,
   And the mome raths outgrabe.

A Brief History of Mercy Ministry in the Church - Part Two

This is part Two of Three posts in a series on the history of Mercy Ministry in the Christian Church. Part One is accessible here.

After introducing the topic and giving a brief overview of Mercy Ministry in the Early Church,  today's post emphasizes the Patristic Era, Medieval Era and Reformation Era.

---

Patristics

Photo by .craig. Used by Creative Commons License.  http://ow.ly/IHw3G 

During the Patristic Era, Christianity was the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. This period ended when the Roman Empire fell. The church rapidly went from political underdog to a political favorite. The new found favor led to a convergence between worldly politics and church offices. The bishop in Rome began to have more and more power, eventually gaining more significance in the eyes of the people than the emperor. Notably, it was Pope Leo I who negotiated a treaty with the Attila the Hun, not the Roman Emperor. By the time the Roman Empire collapsed due to repeated invasions in 590 A.D., the Church was a greater uniting force than the vestiges of the Roman government.

 The Emperor Julian, often called “The Apostate,” made an active attempt to remove Christianity from the Roman Empire in the middle of the 4th century. In his diatribe against Christians he wrote, “The impious Galileans not only feed their own poor but ours as well, welcoming them into their agape; they attract them, as children are attracted, with cakes.” Obviously there is some sarcasm here, but the point should be well taken that Christians had a significant impact in their society because they did mercy ministries.

 Ambrose of Milan wrote, “It is justice that renders to each one what is his, and claims not another’s property; it disregards its own profit in order to preserve the common equity.” (Ambrose, On the Duty of the Clergy, i.) So here, the merciful action of Christians is looking after the interests of others even at their own expense.

 For Augustine, the Bishop of the North African city of Hippo, seeking the common good was a demonstration of Christ’s command to demonstrate neighbor love:

“Now you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself. What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection. . . . From this precept proceed the duties of human society, in which it is hard to keep from error. But the first thing to aim at is, that we should be benevolent, that is, that we should cherish no malice and no evil design against another. For man is the nearest neighbor of man. (Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church)”

In the same work, he urges his readers to care for the physical needs of their neighbors. Drawing an all-encompassing circle around the needs of the human body.

“Man, then, as viewed by his fellowman, is a rational soul with a mortal and earthly body in its service. Therefore, he who loves his neighbor does good partly to the man’s body, and partly to his soul. What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline. (Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church)”

What we can see in this period of church history is that there was a theological impetus toward mercy ministry. Augustine, who remains a central figure in the development of Christian doctrine, balanced the need for evangelism with the need for meeting the physical needs of the people around. Far from a novel invention of the millennial evangelicals, mercy ministry has been a core Christian practice.

Medieval

The Medieval period runs from the fall of Rome to the beginning of the Protestant reformation. This is a period of time that sees the Papacy as largely the most significant political force in the known world. The Popes are the kingmakers, since according to the theological understanding of the day, the Pope held the keys to the kingdom of heaven while the kings only controlled daily life.

 Monasticism was a leading movement in implementing mercy ministry in the middle ages. Among the Sayings of the Fathers that record the words of many of the early monks, and which were influential in later monasticism, we have such statements as these:

“From our neighbor are life and death. If we do good to our neighbor, we do good to God: if we cause our neighbor to stumble, we sin against Christ. (From The Sayings of the Fathers, cited in George W. Forell, Christian Social Teachings (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 85.)

A brother asked an old man: “There are two monks: one stays quietly in his cell, fasting for six days at a time, and laying many austerities upon himself: and the other ministers to the sick. Which of them is more acceptable to God?” The old man answered: “If the brother, who fasts six days, even hung himself up by his nostrils, he could never be the equal of him who ministers to the sick. (Ibid.)”

Thomas Aquinas built on Scripture, church tradition and Aristotelian philosophy to argue: “Justice is a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by constant and perpetual will.” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II/2.58.1.) So internal holiness is not the only goal, because “justice is an external operation, in so far as either it or the thing we use by it is made proportionate to some other person to whom we are related by justice. . . . Therefore the proper act of justice is nothing else than to render to each one his own.” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II/2.58.11.) Thomas was operating under a view of nature that held to common natural rights to the earth, and so God’s plan was for the earth to meet all the needs of the inhabitants of earth.

 In addition to these sources, there are many other evidences of active work in ministry done by the church on behalf of the poor. Taking care of the poor was a central pillar in the doctrine of the church. At times it became questionable whether it was consistently central to the practice of the church. However, there is clear evidence that during this period, mercy ministry was viewed as essential to being Christian.

Reformation

For the purposes of this discussion, the Reformation Era runs from 1517 when Luther posted his 95 theses on the doors of the Wittenberg Cathedral to about the end of the 30 Years war. During this time, theological strife was rampant and mixed with political issues as princes and kings were encouraged to engage in wars under religious guise but often for political reasons. This was also a period which saw the rise of the nation-state and a market economy.

 The theological thrust of the Reformation was the recovery of the gospel. In the view of Luther, the gospel had been so misrepresented by the Roman Catholic Church that radical reformation of the church practices and doctrines were required. In that time, though, everyone was “Christian” in the sense that all Europeans were brought into the church through infant baptism. Thus there were few questions about doing good to Christians vs. non-Christians. At the same time, Luther’s 95 Theses were largely driven by a desire to restore just dealings in Europe. Two of the injustices wrapped up in the sale of indulgences were the redirection of economic resources to Rome for improper purposes and the offer of forgiveness without repentance. Theses 43–46 read:

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means squander it on pardons.

 Calvin, too, held mercy ministry as a central role of the Christian. These comments come from his treatise on the Ten Commandments, explaining the application of the Eighth Commandment: 

“The purport is, that injustice being an abomination to God, we must render to every man his due. . . . For we must consider, that what each individual possesses has not fallen to him by chance, but by the distribution of the sovereign Lord of all, that no one can pervert his means to bad purposes without committing a fraud on a divine dispensation. ”

Calvin was urging the righteous use of money, which is a form of mercy ministry. In his Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 8, Calvin explains that doing good to neighbors is an essential part of true piety: 

“Because a man does not easily maintain love in all respects unless he earnestly hears God, here is proof also of his piety. Besides, since the Lord well knows, and also attests through his prophets, that no benefit can come from us to him, he does not confine our duties to himself, but he exercises us “in good works toward our neighbor.” The apostle consequently has good reason to place the whole perfection of the saints in love. Elsewhere he quite rightly calls it the “fulfillment of the law,” adding that “he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.””

 More could be said about the function of the external works of righteousness in the life of the Christian, but from these evidences it is clear that the Reformers held mercy ministry as a central function of Christians.

A Brief History of Mercy Ministry in the Church - Part One

Original photo by Alex Proimos, The Hand. Used by Creative Commons License. http://ow.ly/IHuJH

Over the past few decades, conservative Christians have had to “rediscover” the biblical doctrine of mercy ministry because many had retreated from the application of the gospel to society.

Aside from the clear theological error, one reason for this abandonment was a reaction to the strong push by many theologically liberal Protestants to do practical social ministry without proclaiming the gospel. Those who advocated social ministry over the gospel felt that meeting physical needs was the primary function of Christianity and teaching doctrinal truth was a divisive non-essential. 

The somewhat predictable overreaction led many doctrinally conservative Christians to overemphasize theological truth to the exclusion of practical ministries. Additionally, in the 19th and 20th centuries a particular view of the end times became very popular, teaching that the world would be annihilated and an entirely new kind of creation would be made by God. This form of eschatology tended to deemphasize the importance of good works done in this life that were not of an explicitly “spiritual” nature.

 In the middle of the 20th century, there was a rise in a stream of theology called Missional Theology, which tends to focus on a broader view of God’s working in the world. This movement has influenced evangelicals, even those outside of the Missional movement, to return to the earlier Christian patterns that emphasized both proclamation of the gospel and meeting people’s physical needs.

 In a series of three posts on the history of mercy ministry in the Christian tradition, I will attempt to show in very broad terms, that social activism is deeply rooted in the history of the Church. This is something that should characterize the way the church lives in addition to doctrinal orthodoxy.

 In order to gallop through this expansive history in a short time, I have divided Church History into five basic periods. We will look at the role of the church in doing mercy ministry during the Early Church, the Patristic era, then the Medieval era, the Reformation era, and finally the Modern era.  

Early Church

 The Early Church is generally defined as the period from the death of the Apostles to the acceptance of Christianity as a legal religion in the Roman Empire in the first decades of the 4th century. This is a period that was characterized by periodic and regional persecutions of Christians by the pagan Roman Empire. The Christian Church was often marginalized, but more socially than physically in most cases. During this time Christian theologians were fighting to establish legitimacy of the Church and to obtain permission to continue to exist as a Church “above ground.”

 Waldo Beach and H. Richard Niebuhr note that the early church was most known for the assistance provided to fellow Christians. They write, “The most striking quality of the Christians was their agape in the care of their own group, as seen in their assistance to the bereft, to orphans and old people, in the care for prisoners and the sick and those condemned to the mines, and in their hospitality and the sharing of economic goods.”[1] This is likely largely because it was illegal to be Christian and because the church was too small in the early days to be a significant social force.

 However, in the earliest Christian writing after the New Testament, the pursuit of justice on a broader scale is evident. The Epistle of Barnabas, the author (not Barnabas) speaks against the prevailing Roman practice of exposing children: “That we may avoid all injustice and impiety, we have been taught that to expose the newly born is the work of wicked men––first of all because we observe that almost all [foundlings], boys as well as girls, are brought up for prostitution.”

 The author of the Didache writes, “Give to everyone that asks, without looking for any repayment, for it is the Father’s pleasure that we should share His gracious bounty with all men.” This points toward mercy being shown to those around and not merely the Christian community.

 This attitude is described by Tertullian, “One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives.” This he included in his Apology for Christians. However, Tertullian makes it clear that their acts of mercy were not focused solely on Christians:  

“We have no respect of persons in doing good, because by so doing we do good to ourselves, who catch at no applause or reward from men, but from God only, who keeps a faithful register of our good works, and has ample rewards in store for this universal charity; for we have the same good wishes for emperors as for our nearest friends.”[2]

 Based on the historic evidence, neighbor love was a central aspect in the lives of the Early Church. Largely based on their position as (generally) lower class individuals outside of the usual power structures, it seems that often a great deal of effort was directed within their faith community before pursuing mercy ministry on a public scale.

[1] Waldo Beach and H. Richard Niebuhr, Christian Ethics: Sources of the Living Tradition, 2nd ed. (New York: Knopf, 1973), 53

[2] Tertullian, Apology, chapter XXXVI.

Why Should People Blog?

I own several hundred books that I haven’t read, most of which I hope to read or reference at some point. New books are coming out at an amazing rate. I've found that I certainly can't keep up in my sub-discipline of Christian environmental ethics. Forget about actually reading the new books from the various Christian publishing houses that people around me and in my church are reading.

Even more than the available published books, the internet is awash in a sea of information. We are inundated with data, facts, descriptions, accounts, pictures, videos, opinions, artifacts, and various entertainments. 

If your Facebook feeds and Twitter streams are anything like mine, you probably have the same overwhelmed feeling that I get when I think of all that there is to think about and read and process. There is no way I can keep up with the torrent of information that is sent my way on the internet, forget about the thousands of volumes in the local library that I haven’t read.

With this overflow of information, why do people–myself included–feel it necessary to chime in by creating more online content? 

There are at least three reasons why bloggers write:

First, there is a theological reason for this. Humans are made in the image of God. It’s been that way since God created Adam and Eve. Part of the way we reflect the image of God is by creating. God is a creator, we are sub-creators that imitate his work. One way that some of us reflect God’s creative activity is by thinking and writing. Blogs are simple ways of doing that, though the writers may not be conscious of this motivation.

Second, practically speaking, writing for blogs is the easiest way to get published. Even if you are a good thinker and writer, there is no guarantee that a completed book will get published. However, for under $100 and a few hours of work, you can have a customized web address, some pretty pictures, and your own content displayed for hundreds–more likely dozens–to view. The desire to publish can have either positive or negative motivations.

Third, blogging provides a way to communicate to a broader audience. Ideally this is what blogging is good for. Blogging should be less focused on ranting, reacting, and misrepresenting than on communicating valuable perspectives on things that the writer is intimately familiar with or has at least carefully researched.

How does blogging advance the kingdom?

As a Christian, the most significant motivation for me should be to advance the Kingdom of God. This is done by verbally proclaiming the gospel as well as by working to bring the redemptive power of the gospel to bear on the world around us. 

Blogging can help with both aspects of this.

In fact, Karen Swallow Prior makes the point that blogging is just the latest technological iteration of an older impetus. In her recent book, Fierce Convictions, Prior notes that the pamphlets that were used to good effect in the 18th and 19th centuries to make theological and social arguments broadly and inexpensively are the precursor to blogs. These pamphlets were cheap to print, could be mass produced, and broadcast widely. This sounds a lot like blogs to me.

Pamphlets helped to change the world, even though their messages were often brief and transient. Blogs can do the same, hopefully for the better.

Tony Merida notes the possibility of Kingdom service through blogging in his recent book Ordinary. When offering practical suggestions for speaking up and helping end injustice, Merida writes, “Consider writing a blog to your readers or encouraging someone else who blogs to highlight a particular issue of injustice.”

Merida recognizes the power of our modern means of communications. He also recognizes the danger of it. 

He writes, “Be aware of the fact that it is easy, as well as dangerous, to speak with a false sense of authority, make sweeping generalizations, or perhaps even disclose information that can re-victimize or increase vulnerabilities for the very ones you seek to speak up for.” 

There is raw power in blogging that must be managed carefully.

Being truthful should be the primary goal of every communicator. Communication that is misleading, intentionally or accidentally, does not advance the Kingdom. As a private citizen, I have a responsibility to present the facts as well as I can and be subject to correction when I fail at that.

Grace should pervade every post. The internet is a wilderness and there is great potential for doing good or evil by communicating on the web. If I slander someone or viciously attack every move someone makes, I could cause someone great harm. Even when a blogger writes to argue a point, she should seek to be gracious. There will be fewer clicks in the short term, but this is a gospel issue. Internet shaming is a tactic from the pit of hell and should be avoided at all costs.

A sense of purpose should drive the content of a site. There are too many media-lite parrots on the internet that slightly repackage yesterday’s news to gather a few clicks. My social media streams are overflowing with these sorts of links. A good rule of thumb is that unless you are providing something unique to the conversation, you shouldn't post it and share it. All you are doing is speaking from someone else’s authority and flooding the stream. You may be killing legitimate dialogue in the process.

Additionally, sometimes you just shouldn't post your opinion on the latest scandal in the news because you don’t have enough information about critical race theory, the justice system, internet hacking, or Middle Eastern politics. This doesn't mean you can’t learn about those things, but publishing something assumes a degree of expertise. Doing this improperly can be dangerous and misleading.

So what?

In the end, blogging and social media have potential to make contributions for the Kingdom, both by being evangelistic and by promoting justice. This is true only if we use the available tools well, covered in prayer, seasoned with the gospel, and focused on doing good instead of just self-promotion.

Note: If you find this interesting, you may also be interested in my previous post on Social Media and the Christian.

Social Media Use and the Christian

One of the main limitations of electronic communication is the lack of tone. This means that e-mails between people who are generally unfamiliar with each other have a strong potential to be misread and misinterpreted.

It is no mystery that losing the facial expressions, body language that you get with a face to face conversation. Even the cue of a tone of voice is missing from electronic communication. These make communicating electronically a perpetual danger.

Consider the simple student-professor interaction. A student asks a question via e-mail, which is clearly outlined in the syllabus. The professor has a few choices. The first is to carefully answer the question, eating up valuable time and (perhaps) enabling the inattentiveness that is at the root of the student’s problem. 

A second choice is to simply write back, “It’s in the syllabus.” This is exactly the truth, but the e-mail lacks the gracious tone of voice that communicates to the student that, while they are important as a person made in the image of God, they need to demonstrate the life skills of doing due diligence before pestering someone. Instead, this has the strong potential to be received by the student as a harsh message, which is, most of the time, not warranted or intended.

The Dangers of Facebook Debates

E-mail, at least, offers opportunities for expanding and contextualizing responses.  So do platforms like Facebook. Still, Facebook has its own dangers.

The prime concern with Facebook debates is that you are essentially holding a conversation across the room. This works when you are telling someone you think their puppy is cute or congratulations on getting married. However, when you are explaining a nuanced political point there will be, inevitably, someone who isn’t aware of the context that is listening and misinterpreting the conversation.

In this manner, pieces of a discussion that are assumed but not spoken may lead someone with a different worldview to draw significant conclusions. If terms are not defined, it may lead someone to believe something about the discussion or its participants that just isn’t true. It may be, too, that the relationship between the readers allows a tone to be assumed, instead of expressed. However, since the debate is being read by those outside the circle, it may misrepresent the nature of the argument. Consider the following:

Person 1: “Aaron Rogers is the best quarterback ever.”
Person 2: “You’re an idiot, Joe Montana is better by a mile, just like I’ve always said.”

This conversation may be nothing but chatter between friends, but to the third person who is unaware of the joviality, this may seem harsh. 

Now imagine if the conversation is about an important topic, like an upcoming Supreme Court decision or a theological topic. The public nature of such debates makes them dangerous for maintaining gracious Christian tone.

The Risk of Twitter Exchanges

A greater danger for Christians in the electronic world lies in the abbreviated exchanges that take place on Twitter.

The lack of expressiveness and context in many forums, like e-mail and Facebook, can be overcome by being verbose. Sometimes people overcome it by using emoticons, but I am opposed to those on principle. :-)

On Twitter, however, you get 140 characters. You couldn’t even order a meal in 140 characters. How can you expect to make a convincing argument in that space?  More significantly, how can you hope to communicate your point with grace in that short a span?

Here, again, the conversation taking place in a public space without even the protections of various nuanced privacy settings. As the trolling that takes place when a conference uses a hashtag to collect tweets demonstrates, there are a lot of people with too much time on their hands that are more than glad to be nasty to someone else just for fun.

Additionally, once something is posted on Twitter, there are numerous bots that catalog tweets, sometimes just for the purpose of internet shaming. Suddenly a relatively innocuous tweet you made about a marriage conference can be posted on a website, labeled (with your avatar) as hate speech, because you spoke positively about someone’s presentation. Even if you delete the tweet, those sentiments may be available for an internet eternity.

What this latter example illustrates is that Twitter allows the reader to provide his or her own context. This should make use consider what the appropriate use of Twitter really is.

It should also make us think carefully about how we treat other people’s tweets. If we expect a modicum of grace for our tweets, we should grant the same to others, even those with whom we strongly disagree.

There is certainly more to be discussed about the use of social media as Christians. I’m interested in reading your comments below and continuing this very important conversation.

Note: This post (and perhaps some to follow) have been spurred on by an ongoing conversation with my friend, Sam Morris (@samorris8) who is the social media guru for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Three Vital Relationships for Every Seminarian

It’s the beginning of another seminary semester. Several hundred new students have enrolled in classes that have started this week and the education of another batch of pastors, missionaries, teachers, and other faithful servants of Christ has begun.

This is always an exciting time on campus. The energy level that the students bring to campus can be sensed as we sing together in chapel, see people in the library, and interact on the walkways.

At the same time, when new members are introduced into a community, there are always periods of adjustment as the new faces (and sometimes the returning ones) try to figure out how to relate to people around them. What does it look like to be a seminary student?

I think there are (at least) three categories that need to be discussed along these lines for beginning students. There are three basic, and new, relationships that an incoming seminary student needs to develop.

What about my relationship with God?

Even though students that come to seminary do so for the purpose of gaining skills and knowledge that are helpful for serving God, one of the first things that gets neglected in the hustle of seminary life is often the vertical relationship with God.

Seminary takes years to complete. It often requires students with families to work full-time and take classes on the side. Or, it requires them to take classes full-time with a part-time job. In addition to that, there are ministry opportunities, the needs of family, and general life situations that pile up.

It is easy for a seminary student to neglect his or her first love--the Triune God.
Therefore, the first advice every seminary student needs to hear every semester is to be a good disciple first and foremost. Everything else must fit into place around that.

Churches need pastors who are personally holy more than professionally competent. Education in languages, biblical studies, theology, and history fill in some of the professional competence. Seminary cannot, however, make a student holier.

Students need to make growing in their relationship with Christ the first priority. Don’t let devotional Bible reading, Scripture memory, and Christian fellowship slip because you have a paper due.

What about my relationship with students?

Seminary can be a time of growth, personally, spiritually, and intellectually.

For many new seminarians, this is the first time they have had real contact with someone who doesn’t share some of the same doctrinal convictions as others. Here at Southeastern we are mostly Baptist, but there are numerous places where there is diversity amongst the faculty and students with regard to interpretation of biblical passages.

Beyond core support for central tenets of orthodoxy and certain aspects of Baptist identity, Southeastern has latitude for faculty and students to nuance a variety of doctrines. Hence, in our classrooms and meetings, there will be five point Calvinists sitting next to three pointers, with a few classical Arminians thrown into the mix. There will be dispensationalist pre-millenials sitting next to amillenial believers engaging in learning God's word.

This is a healthy mix as long as students from any theological persuasion keep a few things in mind.

1.    Outside of basic beliefs central to orthodoxy, there should be room for gracious discussion on topics. Just because “you’ve always heard” does not mean it was ever correct. Students come to seminary to learn something, not just to be reinforced in their existing beliefs in every case. This means that conversations need to be gracious and seasoned with salt.

2.    Other students are people, too. Even the foaming at the mouth egalitarian deserves respect as a person made in the image of God. You will have more success convincing them of your position if you listen and then dialogue rather than blasting their character for believing differently than you. Additionally, it is possible they (like you) haven’t figured everything out and some of the course reading will help to shape their understanding as the program goes on.

3.    Other students paid to hear the professor, not you. While your opinion may be significant to you and your immediate circle of friends, you are a student. This means that class time is not the opportunity for you to lecture your fellow students (or the professor) on the book you happened to have read or the sermon series your pastor preached once upon a time. Respect other people’s time and financial investment during class. Grind your axe in the hallway after class.
 

What about my relationship with professors?

This is one of the more important aspects of your time at seminary and it can impact how successful you are.

The professors at Southeastern, and most others, are godly men and women who have invested years of their lives in getting terminal degrees and ministering to the body of Christ. They didn’t get into teaching for the money. They want to help equip students to serve the church and fulfill the Great Commission.

Part of equipping you is teaching you how to deal respectfully with people, whether in person or in electronic communication.

Your professors are not your best friends. Even though your English profs at your liberal arts school may have allowed you to call them by their first name in class, this should not be an assumed privilege for seminary professors. Once you graduate and move to a church, there will be people you need to treat with professional respect and formality.

Calling someone by their appropriate title (Dr., Mrs., Mr., etc.) does not mean that they are a more valuable person than you. It does, however, demonstrate respect for their position. It also helps establish a healthy learning environment which, while cooperative, recognizes the expertise of the individual leading the class.

Additionally, although many of your professors actually exist outside of the classroom and may have an informal relationship with you at church or on social media, this does not collapse the professionalism required in the classroom. There is room for banter, but allow your professors to be professional in the classroom.

Although social media lends itself to banter and fun in the electronic world, Direct Messages and Facebook comments are not the place to ask about your assignments (which are detailed in the syllabus) or why you got a ‘D’ on the paper you wrote so poorly.

Professionalism in the classroom makes everyone’s life a little better.

Are there things I’ve missed? Write your suggestions below.

An Ethical Primer on Wealth and Poverty

Along the spectrum of understandings of Wealth and Poverty among Christians, there are two common errors. The first is asceticism, which presents the idea that the poor are more holy than the rich. The second has recently been labeled the Prosperity Gospel, which equates material wealth with spiritual blessing. 

Asceticism

It is easy to figure out how people fall into the trap of asceticism. Some key passages from Scripture point toward wealth as a trap that can lead to sin; Jesus and his disciples lived a very minimal lifestyle, with no concern for possessions to speak of; Jesus himself taught that following him implied self-denial (Luke 9:23). The result of this has been the error of asceticism, which is the teaching that self-denial is the key to holiness and that owning possessions is sinful.

There are some problems with this position. First, there are a number of materially wealthy individuals in Scripture who are presented as heroes of the faith. Examples include Abraham, David, and Job (at times). The key is that their possessions were not the ultimate purpose of their lives. Second, there are passages that show that God provides material wealth to some people as a blessing. 

Prosperity Gospel

The opposite extreme from asceticism is known in our day as the prosperity gospel. The prosperity gospel teaches that being holy necessarily results in material blessings in the form of health and wealth. There are a number of contemporary teachers who offer us our best life now, but there are biblical examples of this found in people like Job’s friends (who assumed his sickness and impoverishment were a direct result of sin in his life) and the Pharisees (John 9). 

There are many, many problems with this position. First, Job was “faultless” and yet God allowed Satan to test him by taking away his wealth. Second, Paul was poor and he told Timothy to be content with basic necessities for life (1 Tim. 6:6–10). Third, Jesus was poor (cf. Matt 8:20).

Biblical Witness to Wealth and Poverty

Scripture has more to say about the subject of wealth and poverty than about any other specific topic. By most counts there are over 2000 verses in Scripture that talk about wealth and poverty. This means that we will certainly only cover a small minority of the verses in Scripture about wealth and poverty.

First, we should understand that God is sovereign over the quantity of our material possessions:

“You shall remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day. (Deut 8:18)”

“The LORD makes poor and makes rich;
he brings low and he exalts. (1 Samuel 2:7)”

“The rich and the poor meet together;
the LORD is the maker of them all. (Proverbs 22:2)”

Next, we should understand that the love of wealth, either gaining or maintaining it, is a sin problem:

“‘And you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. And you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.’ (Deut. 5:21)”

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. (1 Tim 6:10)”

Wealth isn’t an ultimate good in itself, and we should pursue holiness as our primary goal: 

“Better is a little with the fear of the LORD
than great treasure and trouble with it (Proverbs 15:16)”

“Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, and the rich in his humiliation, because like a flower of the grass he will pass away. For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits.” (James 1:9–11)”

However, poverty is not a good thing. We should work diligently and enjoy the benefits of our labor:

“How long will you lie there, O sluggard?
When will you arise from your sleep?
A little sleep, a little slumber,
a little folding of the hands to rest,
and poverty will come upon you like a robber,
and want like an armed man. (Proverbs 6:9–11)”

“A rich man’s wealth is his strong city;
the poverty of the poor is their ruin. (Proverbs 10:15)”

Ultimately, whether rich or poor, we should trust in God’s sufficient provision:

“And he said to his disciples, “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat, nor about your body, what you will put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.

“Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Luke 12:22–34)”

Even in the heavens and new earth, different people will have degrees of responsibility and blessing:

“When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made fi ve minas.’ And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ (Luke 19:15–19)”

There is a great deal more that could be said about the topic of wealth and poverty, but here are a few principles we can find in the passages we just read:

1.    The degree to which we are wealthy or poor is dependent on God’s sovereign plan.
2.    God will always provide us what we need to do his will. (Sometimes his will is for us to glorify him through suffering.)
3.    There is nothing wrong with possessing material wealth as long as we view it as a tool for serving God.
4.    However, material wealth should never be pursued as an end in itself nor for selfish gain.

A Christian Environmental Ethics - Part Four

This is Part Four of a series arguing toward a Christian environmental ethics. In the previous posts in this series we have examined the three aspects of the biblical narrative that point toward a comprehensive approach to human stewardship of creation. Those three aspects are Creation, Fall, and Redemption.

---

God created everything good, but it wasn’t in its final state. The vision of God was always to have humans populate the earth, develop technologies and build cities in the garden. However, Adam sinned, and God cursed the earth to remind humans that there is something wrong. Ever since then, humans have been pushing back against the disorder of the curse and struggling to overcome the wilderness.  When Christ came, he worked at alleviating the effects of the curse around him. Ultimately, his death on the cross made possible the final restoration of all things, which will come at some point in the future. In the meanwhile, since we are still on earth, we should be working to reverse the effects of the curse like Jesus did. We should be preaching the gospel verbally and demonstrating the implications of the gospel practically. We should be helping the weak, serving one another, and working as good stewards to use creation wisely. We do these things because we will be called to give an account of our work when Christ returns.

Some practical applications:

1.   Consume less – Americans are guilty of a lot of waste. We buy too much stuff we don’t need and throw it out. Excess consumption is bad stewardship of the environment and it is bad stewardship of financial resources that could be directed toward gospel activities.

2.   Simplify – One of the reasons why we consume so much is that we are trying to save time or do too much. Simplifying life can have benefits on a number of levels, including reducing the resources we use.

3.   Pick up trash – Simple activities that improve the aesthetics around us, like putting trash where it should be and keeping it from where it shouldn’t be, are good ways to be good stewards of the earth. When we work to directly improve the environment around us, we are showing some of the implications of the gospel, where the signs of the curse are wiped away.

Generally, we need to think close and move out. If we make small decisions about things we can directly control with the intent to be a good stewards of resources, we can do more than worrying about macro problems we can’t conquer. The larger problems will be reduced when the smaller problems are tackled.

To apply the three part paradigm to this: We should seek to conduct ourselves as good stewards, using the available resources wisely and cultivating the earth well. We should seek to do so in the character of Christ, which in this case means by pursuing actions that counteract the effects of the curse. We should have the goal of glorifying God by demonstrating the nature of the gospel through our actions.

Some things we don’t have to do:

1.   Stop having kids – God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. It may be the only command that we’ve faithfully obeyed. Contrary to popular myth, the problem isn’t a lack of space or resources but the allocation and availability of them. People are producers, not just consumers. So we should be encouraged by having more of them.

2.   Stop all technological progress and development – Biodiversity is a good thing and we ought to take it into account when we are looking at developments and technology. However, we don’t need to stop all technological progress and development because we don’t know the answer to every question that could ever possibly be asked. We are called to be good stewards, not infallible prophets.

3.   Pretend everything is a disaster – There is certainly room for us to be better stewards of our resources, but that doesn’t require abandoning the things that have made the improvements in medicine, electronics, and education possible. Hopefulness is something that distinguishes non-Christian environmentalism from other forms. We should be hopeful that things can improve and live for God's glory instead of fear of an apocalyptic demise.

The bottom line is that an environmental ethic that loses sight of the whole picture of stewardship of creation and obedience to God is a bad ethic. As Christians, we ought to consider how our actions impact the environment, especially through our use of resources. However, we should not pursue the “ecological good” without considering the other goods that may be impacted.

A Christian Environmental Ethics - Part Three

This post is Part Three of a series on Christian environmental ethics. Part One emphasized the goodness of creation and the unique stewardship responsibility of humans within the created order. Part Two outlined the impact of sin on the world, particularly through the cursing of creation.

All of creation was good, as God described. However, because of Adam’s sin, God cursed creation to remind humans of the impact of their sin and point toward their need for a redeemer. Additionally, humans have, on many occasions, continued to sin by being poor stewards of creation, which can be seen in some of the pollution and many of the human-caused ecological disasters in the world.

In Scripture, Romans 8 points toward the final redemption of all things, when the curse will be lifted. This is both a present and future reality. In other words, redemption has a right-now aspect and a not-yet aspect. As Paul write in 1 Corinthians 13:12,

“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

Redemption is the work of Christ in the world. Even from the beginning, Christ has been deeply involved in every aspect of creation.

He [God the Father] has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.  And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col 1:13–20)

Christ created all things. He holds all things together. He will reconcile all things to himself, making peace by the blood of his cross.

We can see Christ’s work of redemption and reconciliation in his life. The vast majority of Christ’s miracles demonstrate a pushing back of the curse. The only two possible exceptions are the withering of the fig tree and the changing of water to wine at the wedding at Cana, but both of those can be explained as still demonstrating a positive influence over the created order.

The lesson we can pull from this is that we should be working right now to combat the effects of the curse. This includes such things as healing people, helping the poor, and minimizing pollution. Good stewardship includes working for a healthier ecosystem.

Revelation provides a picture of what the New Heavens and New Earth will look like:

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.  He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” (Rev 21:1–4)

Here are two things to note from this text:

1.   History is moving from the garden to a city. This means that human development and population of the earth is expected. Untouched wilderness may be a good, and may be something we can enjoy, but it isn't the goal for all of creation.

2.   The final restoration of the created order––the removal of the curse––is the work of God and not the work of humans. It is something God has planned from the beginning.

Drawing these concepts together, we can see that the ultimate work of restoring the environment will be done supernaturally by God. However, just as Christ worked to reverse the effects of the curse on the earth, so should we. This will include finding ways to be environmentally friendly. Being environmentally friendly, in many cases, is a part of whole-life stewardship.