Exactly. Social justice IS the Gospel in action.

Posted by: purplehyacinth | April 10, 2008 10:08 AM

and it still hurts me deeply every time i hear people like Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, or Shane Claiborne call themselves evangelical...

In fairness, those men believe that others have "stolen" the term evangelical -- and they're "stealing" it back. See, it make virtually no difference what Christians believe if it doesn't change how they behave/. The corruption of dispensational theology ...

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 10, 2008 11:03 AM

it seems for so long people, like McLaren, Wallis, and campolo, have been dancing around a fire, trying to figure out a way to put the wild bonfire out, but no one is recognizing that a fire exists in the first place.

it seems men like that are encircled around evangelicalism, wanting to change something, wanting to put a fire out...but no one is willing to take a stab at the problem, they just continue to dance around evangelicalism and pretend either A.there's no problem or B.There's a problem, but historical evangelicalism is not to blame.

Posted by: alex | April 10, 2008 11:33 AM

Thank you for such a great post. The invitation is an open one. Those who wish to participate can. Those who do not wish to participate may decline the invitation.

Posted by: JamesMartin | April 10, 2008 12:28 PM

Alex,

you raise an important issue. I don't label myself "evangelical," though theologically I'm quite conservative. And I think you're right that it's probably too late for Wallis, Shane, McLaren et al. to steal back the term.

I don't much like "Christian" either, because it immediately conjures up for many in my environment (I teach at a secular, state-supported university) images of Pat Robertson blaming gays for 9/11, Geo. Bush exploiting the faith for political purposes, abortion opponents who resort to violence, charlatan faith healers, etc.

So what to do? I honestly don't know. I've thought about "Christ follower," "follower of the Way"; at the same time I don't want to hide my Christian faith either. A dilemma.

Does anyone have thoughts on this?

Posted by: carl copas | April 10, 2008 12:49 PM

Alex,

You state:

***a couple years ago the Eastern Orthodox church called the idea of eternal life Heretical. this begs the so-called gospel "why?".***

Can you provide a source and context for this? As an Orthodox Christian I must say that this does not fit with our beliefs at all.

"and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, whose Kingdom shall have no end." --the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed

A.

Posted by: A. | April 10, 2008 1:31 PM

Carl,

You might try doing what I do: accept that in a fallen world there will be Christians who do not measure up to my standards of intelligence and sophistication, and that having to distinguish yourself from embarassing relations is part of the price we pay. Other Christians have suffered far worse.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 10, 2008 2:25 PM

It seems the pendulum swings but never stops in the middle. Social service alone is no more valid than salvation alone.

A couple of years ago I was offering for some of our church members to help the Salvation Army in some of their community activities. One opportunity had to do with their contact with welfare recipients who were filing paperwork for SS Disability. My offer was to have people available to serve as prayer partners with any of the recipients who wanted one.

Since SS Disability filers are dealing with a host of uncertainties, pain, poverty and many times family issues I thought some of them would opt for having a "Christian" pray for them. It turned out that many did and it was a very meaningful and helpful form of ministry.

What surprised me was the response of the Salvation Army people. Praying with these contacts, or telling them about God's love through Jesus Christ, or even giving them a simple "God bless you" had NEVER CROSSED THEIR MINDS. They were shocked by my suggestion and had no context for understanding me. One lady who seemed to have a little more comprehension of my offer finally exclaimed, "Oh, you are a salvationist!" I hadn't heard this term, but meekly admitted "yes, I guess you could say that."

Does it have to be one or the other? Can we pray and tell people about Jesus without offending the liberals; or can we give a meal or assistance to people without offending the conservatives?

Posted by: Greg Davis | April 10, 2008 3:12 PM

This includes the secular liberals who are in as much need of hearing the true gospel as well, instead of trying to shape it to their every whim.

I hope you also means secular conservatives -- the majority of those on the right -- as well. And to do so we need to move away from even those that agree with us ideologically.

... when we work for protection of the people in Darfur and Rwanda, fight for the unborn, obey Jesus' words to define marriage as one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4) against those who would define it otherwise, fight for school choice to liberate the poor from poor public schools, fight secularists who want to silence Christians in the public square and elect officials to office who are not beholden to the liberal secularist agenda, use our military in a compassionate, justice-oriented way to liberate people from oppressive dictators and oppressive governmental systems of injustice (e.g., Cuba, North Korea), etc. and defend nations where liberty or partial liberty exists (e.g., Israel).

Not necessarily true -- this post is advocating a specific ideological agenda which may conflict with what the Scriptures actually say. Besides, a lot of "liberals" are, though unwittingly, following Biblical principles and I think it behooves us to consider, "Even though we may disagree with their methodology, they do have a point."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 10, 2008 3:22 PM

Eric and Wolverine, I appreciate your thoughtful responses.

I should underscore that my concern is not about personal embarrassment or about people who are of lesser intelligence or sophistication (indeed, I'm surrounded by folk who are much smarter and more cosmopolitan than am I).

Rather, it's what to do if people immediately tune you out when you make clear that you're a Christian.

"Other Christians have suffered far worse." Always good to remind oneself of that--my problems are minuscule compared to those faced by millions of other Christians. Thank you Wolverine.

Posted by: carl copas | April 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Nice vision, but what took so long?

Perhaps God had to get him ready -- after all, changing a culture is impossible when people's hearts remain stagnant. That's the thing about "conversion"; it too is a process which happens sometimes when you come across material that doesn't jibe with your traditional beliefs.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 10, 2008 4:03 PM

Andy L.,
I read this blog, but never comment. However, your above comment (@ 3:28p today) smacked of at least an implied ad hominem attack that is unjustified.

I live in another state now, but I was on staff at VCF, now VCColumbus, during the time it transitioned from a roughly 500 person church to the 6,500 person megachurch it is today. I've known Rich pretty well and I know that I don't really have to defend him.

But I will defend the mission of that church. If you've been to Cooper Rd. recently, you'd surely know that on just the other side of the main building lies government-supported housing. A significant portion of the tithe money from VCC goes toward supporting work in that community. Up the hill to the south stands a neighborhood that could best be classified as lower-middle class. Westerville as a whole is a moderate-to-high income (and still dry!) suburb, but the vision of Vineyard Columbus in all of the permutations it has gone through in the last couple of decades indicates that social justice is something that (at least from the preaching staff's point of view) has been a high priority. As evidence, I'd like to offer Fruit of the Vine, a VCf/C ministry focused on social justice operating for as long as I can remember.

Why, then, would Rich have to write such a series? As I said, I've lived hundreds of miles away for a few years now, so, though I keep in touch, I don't know the details of what goes on there like I used to. Investment in physical structures on the (flood plain) property that VCC has sat on for many years has been a financial priority, but this is no posh Columbus-ized Willow Creek; it is unfair to characterize it as such, even if it was tacit. I think the motivation is similar to his motivation when co-authoring Empowered Evangelicals--an attempt to codify in the theology-speak of regular folks (Rich likes to use the phrase "folks") and expand what is already going on in piecemeal activities.

I understand this is somewhat orthogonal from the preponderance of posts and comments here, and I have no intentions of following up, but I thought the readership of this blog should be aware from someone who is no longer an "interested insider" that Vineyard Columbus (at least since I first began attending there in 1995) has always--falteringly, fallibly, hesitatingly at times, and never perfectly--made it a practice to practice what it preaches when it comes to social justice. (It isn't, however, an "inner city" church anymore than it is a high-end suburban church. Perhaps it is best characterized as an "urban sprawl" church that has done its best to root itself in the middle to lower-middle midwestern class structure of that part of Columbus).

And, in contrast to some of the challenges offered in these comments, VCf/C has always stressed the Christo-centric "both/and"ness of social justice and "soul saving."

But don't take my word for it. Ask someone who currently attends. For all its clear and present foibles, it's an amazing version of a megachurch that works.

Posted by: e | April 10, 2008 4:43 PM

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

So when we Christians feed the hungry in the name of Jesus, or heal a sick person in the power of Christ, or work for peace in this war-torn world, or help reconcile a marriage, or extend help to immigrants, or work for the responsible care of the environment, these actions are not a distraction from our commission to preach the gospel of the kingdom. Rather, we are living out our calling as kingdom people to partner with God in bringing about the healing of the entire universe.
AMEN!

Posted by: p.vannatta | April 10, 2008 5:33 PM

Payshun,
Did I miss something or was there a post you are responding to that has since been removed.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | April 10, 2008 5:59 PM

Alex, (and Carl perhaps)

Thank you brother, for speaking clearly.

Your tone is one that is needed. Respectfully yet forcefully cutting through all of the clutter that is present when those like the authors you mentioned simply see something very differently yet go to great lengths to avoid saying what they really mean.

I like the work Brian McLaren has done more than I like what some other supposedly intellectual Christian religious thinkers have done, and he may be a genius (he's at least very bright) who is simply making a conscious effort to gently walk people along some new ways of seeing and thinking. But frequently I want to say to Brian, whom I greatly respect, "Say what you really mean!" I could be off base in assuming that he is not saying exactly what he really means, but my point is that we need to get much deeper than we have been and more courageous--respectfully courageous in what is actually going on (and has for a couple thousand years) which is missing the point of the message of the Christ.

It seems that we succumb to the unspoken, everpresent pressure to not disagree with commonly accepted, popular Christian teachings. One example is what you mentioned: atonement and salvation. Can one call himself a Christian if he daily seeks to BECOME like the Christ and follow the way of the Christ, and behave in ways that lead toward not only serving others but an inner transformation of his Being toward that of unconditional love, yet not "believe" (a mental level activity) a popular Christian teaching? If one does not believe that Divinity required a human sacrifice in order for Divinity to be present within us (Jesus taught that God is and of course it's when he was alive) and that a singular event of declaring the greatness of Jesus is the determiner between absolute bliss and absolute misery, can one call himself a Christian? I actually consider my own question and unimportant one because it does not matter what one CALLS himself, it is what one IS that matters. It is probably obvious that I think we have popularized a primitive depiction of God. It could be said that this popularized depiction of God, which is inconsistent with what Jesus taught, hinders more spiritual growth than all of the books on atheism ever written.

What shall we become? vs. What shall we call ourselves and what are the questions on the quiz to determine membership for our group?

I have felt for some time, brother, that to call myself Christian is to build a wall, either explicitly or implicitly. Furthermore, I don't feel compelled to "qualify" for what many church officials might call Christian for those qualifications are on the surface level. Mental beliefs are surface level; we must talk about the level of the heart more often--the level of Being. To be unconditionally loving, which is to be Christ-like, is a great challenge, but it is a better ideal than to pursue debates, "sales" opportunities, and discussions to get someone to change what he calls himself.

The authors and thinkers you mentioned are better servants than I and perhaps better followers of the way of the Christ than I, but I thank you for your challenge and words of clarity that say, "We're still missing the point too often." We are missing it because we remain on the surface of things, or are too fearful to cut through the centuries of popular thinking that has become a hindrance to seeing properly. Too many feel they need to approach their so-called fresh perspective through the lens of current common assumptions and teachings.

Posted by: Aaron | April 10, 2008 6:51 PM

CAN ANYONE HERE BELIEVE THAT CARL AND OTHERS DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THEY ARE CHRISTIANS? ASHAMED OF WHAT SOMEONE MIGHT THINK. THE PEOPLE WRITING ON NATHAN'S COMMENTS HERE ARE FEARFUL OF WHAT OTHERS MIGHT THINK OF THEM! GO FIND A CAVE SOMEPLACE AND LOVE YOUR RIGHTEOUS SELVES. nathan is way ahead of these guys.

Posted by: jerry | April 10, 2008 7:04 PM

Jerry,
Please don't use all caps.

Posted by: Eric | April 10, 2008 7:40 PM

Jerry, I think Carl and others don't want to be associated with those who aren't walking the walk, even as they broadcast that they are Christians.

In my church, we are invited to be "Christ followers", not conforming to a "Christian" label as defined by the current world culture. Hope this helps.

Posted by: Nance | April 10, 2008 8:44 PM

Ted,
I confused on how the last paragraph fits, could you explain it a little more.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | April 10, 2008 10:05 PM

Ok I'll try not to be too much of a smart alec on this one, but.......Am I to understand correctly that you "Social Gospel" types think you're going to bring in the "Kingdom of God" yourselves, through your good works and social engineering?

Hardly -- there's no way that can happen in our own strength. To do anything in the name of Jesus takes supernatural effort as it is; our task here is to determine what He desires and ask for the power to carry that out. That said, we are required to obey him where possible, and that may lead to what is wrongly labeled a "social gospel."

The problem is that too many Christians focus on the "afterlife" when the Scriptures don't -- at lease in the normal way we think. Yes, Jesus spoke a lot about hell, but only in the context that his hearers forgot about loving God while trying to keep the "law." In fact, the passage most quoted as a "salvation" message, John 3:3 (" ... no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again") has nothing do with heaven -- it's about recognizing what God wants to do in the here and now. (That should be clear from the context.)

I'm no Theologian, but I figured it was sort of obvious that this "Kingdom" you're all talking about comes after Jesus' return and 1,000 year reign.

When John wrote that, he was not being literal -- he really meant forever.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 10, 2008 10:25 PM

"We must be strong regardless of our tribulations to show a seperation from those to whom we unfortunately get associated with through an unfair labeling process, but most importantly we do the right thing for no other reason than because it is the right thing."

Right, and I think the division between justice and resurrection is false (and that goes both ways). However, I don't see a call to get hysterical about labeling. I see nothing in the scriptures that indicates we should be overly concerned about how we are labeled, for any reason.

Pat Robertson or no Pat Robertson, it is easier to call yourself a Christian in America than it has been in just about any other country in just about any other time.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 11, 2008 1:48 AM

I'm a bit doubtful of the value of Old Testament apocalyptic prophecies in this context.

Perhaps you could elaborate your concerns about these interpretations for us. You might also want to take a look at how the New Testament writers interpreted some of those prophecies. That is, our ought to be, our clue as to how we should interpret them.

I don't know what interpretive methods you are applying, but Canucklehead here refers to some rather recent but very popular interpretations that have cropped up over the last 150 years. One big problem with those interpretations--aside from their novelty--is that they almost seem to forget that the New Testament was written and they tend to ignore the interpretations of those Hebrew prophets that the NT writers provide.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | April 11, 2008 8:06 AM

As for the end times, can't you fools see the truth? The world will end when the two Zuuls, the keymaster and the gatekeeper, rejoin and open the gateway to the realm of Gozer. At that time we shall choose our Destructor, and he shall take the form of a giant Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man.

(Well, it makes as much sense as any other theory...)

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 11, 2008 9:47 AM

On the topic of the Kingdom of God. It started when Jesus pronounced the Kingdom is at hand. It should not be confused with the 1000 year reign in Revelation. Whether that is literally 1000 years or not I don't know, I don't believe it means eternal (as Rick suggested) because it is given a definite end in the text.

When Jesus declared the arrival (or soon arrival in some cases) of God's kingdom it usually involved a miracle or a sending forth of workers to destroy the works of Satan. The physical part of this is undeniable, but definitely secondary to the spiritual.
Rick you need to read more of John 3 for context. First, "born again" most likely should be translated "born from above". Second, the end of the chapter speaks very clearly about heaven and eternal life.

I've served three communities as a pastor and 40+ counties as a field rep. for the Salvation Army. I've seen both conservative and liberal churches that understood the importance of compassion ministries. And both types who didn't get it. I have never been opposed by conservatives, but I have been opposed by liberals.

When working with other pastors in this type of ministry I tell them to expect this opposition. More times than not it is true for them as well.
My advise is to focus these folks on the need instead of the theology.

Are some of us more concerned with Rich's theology than his passion to serve the poor?

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | April 11, 2008 11:14 AM

Rick you need to read more of John 3 for context. First, "born again" most likely should be translated "born from above". Second, the end of the chapter speaks very clearly about heaven and eternal life.

"Born from above" is indeed likely a better translation, but as the Jews never placed a great deal of emphasis on the afterlife it's unlikely that's what John primarily meant -- remember, Jesus was addressing a Pharisee who was marveling at his teaching and miracles and thus was telling him, "You're missing the point."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 11, 2008 12:10 PM

I would note that the question of eternity is not simply an eschatological distraction. American Christians do have a tendency to conflate a certain eschatology with the offer of eternal life. As such, they receive any criticism of eschatology as doubt of eternal life.

Posted by: kevin s.. | April 11, 2008 12:52 PM

Eschatology goes through it's sexy phases -- where everybody talks about to times when nobody talks about it. Moody's official stance is "we believe in the imminent return of Jesus Christ" which even allows for lots of variations in interpretation.

I do challenge you all to study the use of the word "reward" in the gospels. For some reason, Christians tend to skip over that part. It's generally used to talk about the next life, and it's generally used to talk about Social Gospel kinds of things.

Posted by: frankie | April 11, 2008 1:22 PM

As for the end times, can't you fools see the truth? The world will end when the two Zuuls, the keymaster and the gatekeeper, rejoin and open the gateway to the realm of Gozer. At that time we shall choose our Destructor, and he shall take the form of a giant Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man.

(Well, it makes as much sense as any other theory...)

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 11, 2008 9:47 AM

Wolvie, I'd like to offer you a $12M publishing contract.

Posted by: canucklehead | April 11, 2008 11:16 PM

While was growing up in one of those quiet unpretentious Evangelical churches in the Midwest I was sometimes approached by other youth at inter church activity and pressed about whether I was saved. They were so determined that I was missing something that they had found. My parents assured me that I was baptized and that I was growing up in an Evangelical church that believed in the tenants of salvation. That I didn't need to do any thing to improve on that. They simply want to affirm that God loved me just the way I already was.

They also taught me not to think I was superior in my faith to someone who had just discovered it. God loves all of us just right where we are already standing, where ever we may be in that journey of faith. As I matured I referred to myself as a relational christian rather than say: a fundamentalist. I still didn't know what to do with this word Evangelical.

I was raised to believe it was more important to know and understand others than it was to be known and have others know what I believed. A person who is secure in their faith does not need or expect others to share their beliefs. So who is being saved anyway? I sometimes refer to myself as a Relational Christian. Even the expression freelance monotheist appeals to me.

Given the opportunity to fill Noah's Arch I would have invited people from every faith fill it. Even a few doubting agnostics. Heaven forbid it would only have room for devout Pilgrims or Evangelicals. We were all created in His image to know one another.

In a world that is full of racial and ethnic conflict and great economic disparity, Evangelicals need to intentionally be seeking out people who see the world differently and who are outside of our comfort zones. God desires for us to respect understand and have compassion for them as He does for us.

Perhaps it is not about whether we manage to save them by knowing US, as it is that WE are saved by knowing them.

This might be what it requires of us to save the world.

Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | April 12, 2008 6:55 AM

Although I usually post on this site simply to annoy liberals (sort of a hobby of mine,) I must say I learn more from the user comments than the blogs themselves. One thing I think I might have learned is that adherents to the "Social Gospel" are more likely to be "Postmillennialist," which I think means they believe that Jesus comes after the Kingdom is established on earth by Christians. I might not have that exactly right, but maybe the general idea. Also, the "postmillennialist" and therefore most "Social Gospel" adherents take a less literal view of Scripture, or at least NT prophecy. Again, these are somewhat unlearned generalizations, which someone might comment on.
I will say taking a "literal" view of "Big Rock Candy Mountain" doesn’t sound that bad to me.
.

Posted by: debarrio | April 12, 2008 12:13 PM

The Fishermans Testament by Cesar Vidal.
An excellent read for todays questioner, of Evangeligicals.

Posted by: Lars | April 12, 2008 8:28 PM

One thing I think I might have learned is that adherents to the "Social Gospel" are more likely to be "Postmillennialist," which I think means they believe that Jesus comes after the Kingdom is established on earth by Christians.

Debarrio, first let me thank you for your honesty re. your usual purpose for posting on blogs like this, though I'm not sure why someone would simply want to annoy others they disagree with.

Regarding postmillennialism, you are only partly correct. I'm not a postmillennialist, but of all the major escahatological positions, it is far and away the most misunderstood. No postmillennialist believes that the kingdom of God is established on earth by human effort. Adherents to that position always insist it is the work of the Holy Spirit that will accomplish it. Yes, the Spirit works through the people of God, but it is God's work, not human work.

Next, yes, most promoters of the "Social Gospel" were postmillenial (sort of--the Social Gospel to an extent did see establishing the kingdom of God as a work of human effort, but in a way that would have been rejected by the more orthodox postmils like the Puritans), but most of them, like the movement itself, are dead. Social Gospel had its heyday in the late 19th and early 20th century. And yes, some elements of Social Gospel thinking are still around, but what Rich Nathan is talking about here has little resemblance. Rather, Nathan is drawing on a much older evangelical tradition--dating from the Wesleys in Britain and spilling over into the "Second Great Awakening" here in the USA, which recognizes a Christian responsibility to work for social justice as an expression of faith. To the Wesleys, this went hand in hand with the Gospel proclamation.

Finally, your comment that postmils are "less literal" in their interpretation of scripture is a cheap shot. Nobody is exclusively literal in interpreting Scriptures for the simple reason that the Scriptures themselves don't allow for a strictly literal interpretation. If you want to talk about differences in interpretation, it is better to compare and contrast varying interpretations of specific passages than to make a blanket comment like that.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | April 12, 2008 10:06 PM

Don,
One more thing. "The concept of "Social Justice" is very much a political thing. Even Hitler believed in "Social Justice." We each have different interpretations or opinions on what is Just or Unjust. For me, drilling a hole in a baby's skull and sucking out it's brain while it is literally centimeters away from having equal protection under the law is an "Injustice." For Barak Obama, it's not. Ooops. There I go again.

Posted by: debarrio | April 13, 2008 8:47 AM

I know I'm in danger of belaboring the point, but Jesus did say that giving food to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, care to the sick, shelter to the stranger and comfort to those in prison would save you ("come you blessed..."). Those of you who still have the passage in your Bibles could look it up.

Posted by: Don Gisselbeck | April 13, 2008 8:12 PM

To "not say" that you are a Christian, is to let negative people blacken the name of Christ and get away with it. Someone who is truly living for Him, needs to name His name. If people say bad things about you, at least you are not being crucified upside down, beheaded, boiled in oil or any of the numerous things that have happened to Christians through the ages, and are still happening to some people just for claiming the name of Christ in some countries. Secondly, the problem with some churches is that they state they believe in an inerrant Bible but then pretend like half of it is not there. They totally ignore all the passges from the Gospels and James (and other places including the Old Testament) about taking care of the poor, visiting the sick and in prison, caring for widows and orphans etc. What about speaking the truth in LOVE (many Christians may speak the truth but in a very hateful tone)? Where does one fit if one doesn't believe in abortion and does believe in caring for the poor? And how does one vote? You have to make a choice! I can't justify supporting torture or abortion or not taking care of the poor or the orphans or talking about someone hatefully even if I disagree with them? People who are conservative left the "social justice" to "the liberals" in the early 1900's because of a political issue. Honestly, though, it is not Biblical so how can it be justified IF one says one believes in an inerrant Bible.

Posted by: Millie | April 14, 2008 3:54 PM