By Paul Raushenbush
It is encouraging to read Pastor Hybels’ post. We appear to agree that the Gospel encompasses both a concern for the soul and for transforming the material existence of the poor. I became eager to attend his church when I read his words that: “in virtually every case, when I see a life get transformed by the atoning work of Christ, it is not long before that new believer sees the plight of the poor…and (has) an intense desire to do whatever is necessary in the name of Christ to eradicate injustice, relieve oppression, and alleviate suffering of any kind.”
I have to say that I am surprised by our convergence and by this claim. I hope that Pastor Hybels is willing to say more about what form this effort takes in his own church and in evangelical churches across the country, because his description of his church is so different from my perception of evangelicalism in America today. Evangelicals seem to be more concerned with proselytizing and campaigning on social issues such as homosexuality than organizing themselves to meet social needs of the poor. Or is that just my ignorance or prejudice? I continue to associate many of the large evangelical churches more with prosperity preaching (which I consider a modern heresy) than with sustained efforts to relieve oppression and alleviate suffering. Maybe in some minds, prosperity preaching is a version of relieving oppression.
However, there are bright spots that, along with Pastor Hybels’ testimony, continue to make me re-evaluate my understanding of the “evangelical agenda.” For instance, the Christian group World Vision has gone into tough places around the world and become almost re-evangelized by their experience of the Gospel as refracted through the lens of the dispossessed. It has made them tenacious and convincing advocates for those whom they are serving. This is similar to what happened to my great-grandfather 100 years ago and why he wrote Christianity and the Social Crisis. I think it may be instructive to those like Rick Warren who dismiss Walter Rauschenbusch as merely a socialist.
The product of seven generations of pastors, Rauschenbusch started his career with a fairly orthodox Christian mission of saving souls. His first church consisted of a small community of immigrants in New York City in the area that was then aptly called Hell’s Kitchen. Through his congregation, he was introduced to overcrowded tenements with high rent, horrendous working conditions, intolerably low wages, lack of heat in the winter, and lack of recreational facilities in the summer, all accompanied by constant hunger and substandard health facilities. Rauschenbusch realized that in order to serve the spiritual needs of his congregation he had to address the whole of their lives.
As a Christian, Walter naturally turned to the Bible to see what it had to say about harsh reality which confronted him. With his new vision, granted by the poor of his congregation, he saw the “kingdom of God” as the centerpiece of Jesus’ teaching and the hope of his earthly ministry. Pastor Rauschenbusch was struck by how the kingdom of God contrasted with the lives of his congregation: “Instead of a society resting on coercion, exploitation, and inequality,” he wrote, “Jesus desired to found a society resting on love, service, and equality.” Rauschenbusch was convinced that the kingdom of God was not an apocalyptic vision that could be passively postponed, but a prophetic call for society’s transformation in the here and now.
Perhaps Pastor Hybels can say something about how his church is involved with this prophetic call for the transformation of not only lives, but of a society which allows such vast disparity of wealth between the richest and the poorest in our own country. How does the kingdom of God function as an organizing principle in his church and in his own understanding of our task as Christians?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Gifts of evangelism and of mercy are both given to the church. It is probably wrong to emphasize one over the other. The task is to bring these very different approaches into a plausible alignment. The tendency of Evangelicals has been to try to stamp cultures with their own religious subculture. The new trend seems to be to conform the message to the culture it is entereing.
I think Pentecostals have tended to use the evangelist Phillip as their model. Their vision is of the preaching campaign. But the results of these campaigns, though impressive to look at, are often very short-lived. The real missions heroes are those who move into unreached cultures as friends and build. One couple I've met spent 26 years living with a tribe in N. Kenya. They learned their language, taught it back to them, wrote textbooks, and translated the Bible. The results are more permanent.
In the end, the Holy Spirit has to orchestrate the workings of the church as a holistic enterprise. He works it all according to His good pleasure. If there is a renewed emphasis on the missional, as among Emergents, then perhaps God is speaking new strategies into the work of the church.
We have new tools now that should not be ignored. Primarily, we now have the Internet, which will evolve in coming years. The potential in this to change the church is astronomical.
I agree with many of the comments made that there the mega churches and their preachers are only interested in the money and preaching hate about homosexuals, liberals,abortions and anything else that they don't agree with, especially if it concerns the poor, disenfranchised and anyone else they feel is not exactly like them. Most seem interested in collecting money just for themselves and if that's in the millions and they DO NOT support anything that doesn't line their own pockets. My own personal belief is that ALL Christians should do something to help the poor, the people who have not heard of Christ AND take care of others whether or not those being helped are Christian or not. It seems to me that if a young lady is thinking of having an abortion, a lot of evangelicals will be screaming at the top of their lungs not to do it. If the young lady does give birth, the evangelicals start by saying " hallelujah, we have saved another life." But what happens next? they go looking for another lady considering an abortion. What if the first is a teenager who is still in school? The evangelicals don't seem to care if the young mother can't finish high school or get some type of training to get a job that's better than flipping burgers and she can't afford to get health care for herself and her child to help with medical costs! Personally, I think there should be an interdenomanatil organization that could help with getting help with these issues that could be set up as a non profit for their help.
I have to disagree with some of these characterizations of evangelicals.
I've attended many evangelical churches in my life, and although I've often felt like a black sheep for my theological and political convictions, I can no longer make an accusation against evangelicals that "they don't care about the poor". Here are just a few anecdotes...
The first church I attended operated a large food pantry and participated with a network of churches to host a homeless shelter weekly at their facility--these services were offered with no compulsory religious preachiness, just love. They were generous givers to both domestic charity projects as well as international relief projects (recently I heard that when they raised money to repair their church roof, they made a goal to raise the same amount to build a school in Congo).
The second evangelical church I attended sent a team of doctors and nurses from their congregation to Indonesia just days after the Tsunami, sacrificing their vacation and many thousands of dollars to offer help to the suffering. We participated bi-weekly at a free meal program in a blighted urban neighborhood. This church also gave generously to global relief projects. Many of these "holy-rollers" were just as likely to bemoan the state of poverty in our world as they were to say anything about homosexuality.
My current evangelical church hosts its own food pantry and job-resource center. Many parishoners participate in advocacy groups for fair housing. We do letter witting campaigns to increase federal funding for anti-poverty efforts.
Consider the response of the Southern Baptist denomination in the wake of Katrina-- many millions of dollars and thousands of volunteer hours have been invested in rebuilding the gulf coast.
While unfortunately nationalism has seeped in to too many churches and it has caused evangelicals to support the war more than most Americans, its been my experience that overseas evangelical missionaries have been some of the most fervent anti-war folks I've met.
Jokers like Falwell are not indicative of the evangelical movement. Its much more nuanced. Sure they're hung up on some issues of sexuality, but the fact is that if progressive Christians are willing to engage them, evangelicals could be a powerful force for continued social change to bring peace and economic justice to our world.
Thank, you very much for the enlightment the but there is that the word of God in the book of Ecc. said that money answereth all things without money the preacher get to no where to preach the gospel,i know and heard of some pastors who in all their preaching is all about money and advertising thier writen novel aand books but we should not look at them as every body rewards is in heaven and it is certain that all of us will give our sterwardship and account on how we live our life in heaven.
thank you very much and may God bless all of US (amen)
Tolani Anifowose
The processes involved in cult development include:
* Education: People, often beginning with children, are taught to hate those who are different and they are taught to interpret scriptures, like the Bible or the Koran, literally instead of symbolically: holy war, Jihad, is then externalized, waged on perceived outside enemies in contrast to an inner holy war with one's lesser nature.
* Creating enemies: The group, whether political or religious, must create enemies to survive: other nation states, other religions, other races. Unspeakable evil is rationalized for the "greater good," for the sake of the group's mission and agenda. It's "unfortunate" if thousands of innocent civilians are murdered in the process.
* Labeling: Destructive ideologies categorize others by group characteristics such as color, religion, ethnicity, nationality or economic status instead of seeing the individual human being.
* Elitism: Leaders' ideas and agenda are sacred, inspired or beyond reproach: This produces a presumed superiority over others with different views, encouraging elitism, separation, hatred, and prejudice.
* Black and white thinking: Destructive organizations promote a fundamental separation of pure and impure, good and evil: purity equates to being in the group; impurity and evil equate to those outside the group, who must be saved, defeated or destroyed. God is always on their side.
* Exclusiveness: Belief that their belief system-whether political, economic, or religious-is the solution for the world's problems. They have the truth and nonbelievers do not.
* Censorship: Leadership attempts to control information and communication into and out of the group as well as individuals' inner thought processes. Doubts, criticisms and different ideas are taken as attacks, disloyalty, or lack of faith.
John D. Goldhammer - 'Why the Bush "War on Terror" is Fated to Fail' (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1122-06.htm)
The question remains about whether certain evangelical groups become cults - and spend more time assailing their 'enemies' than living their faith.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.