What Doing Justice Means for My Church (Part 1 of 5 by Rich Nathan)
I've always wanted to be part of a church that seeks to be and to do everything the New Testament calls the church to be and to do. I've described this kind of church in the past as a holistic church, or a church that works on all eight cylinders. In other words, it is not enough if my church is known as a great worship center, or a great preaching church. The New Testament demands more.
New Testament scholar N.T. Wright gets us right to the heart of the matter when he says:
For generations the church has been polarized between those who see the main task being the saving of souls for heaven and the nurturing of those souls through the valley of this dark world, on the one hand, and on the other hand those who see the task of improving the lot of human beings and the world, rescuing the poor from their misery. The longer I've gone on as a New Testament scholar and wrestled with what the early Christians were originally talking about, the more it's borne in on me that distinction is one that we modern Westerners bring to the text rather than finding it in the text. Because the great emphasis in the New Testament is that the gospel is not how to escape the world; the gospel is that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. And that his death and Resurrection transformed the world, and that transformation can happen to you. You, in turn, can be part of the transforming work. That draws together what we traditionally call evangelism, bringing people to the point where they come to know God and Christ for themselves, with working for God's Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. That has always been at the heart of the Lord's Prayer, and how we've managed for years to say the Lord's Prayer without realizing that Jesus really meant it is very curious. Our Western culture since the 18th century has made a virtue of separating our religion from real life, or faith from politics. When I lecture about this, people will pop up and say, "Surely Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world." And the answer is no, what Jesus said in John 18 is, "My kingdom is not from this world." That's ek tou kosmoutoutou. It is quite clear in the text that Jesus' kingdom doesn't start with this world. It isn't a worldly kingdom, but it is for this world. It is from somewhere else, but it is for this world.
Social justice is simply a commitment on the part of Christians to improve the lot of human beings in this world, particularly the lot of the most marginalized to whom God shows particular concern. The God of the Bible is both a God of justification (declaring us right with God) and justice (putting the world to rights).
Social justice was the historic practice of the evangelical church before the 20th century. It would have been unthinkable for leaders like John Wesley or William Wilberforce to consider someone to be a good follower of Jesus Christ who was not actively involved in improving the social conditions of people in this world.
Doing justice is one of the major themes throughout scripture. God hates religion without an accompanying commitment to social justice:
I hate, I despise your religious festivals; I cannot stand your assemblies. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream! ( Amos 5:21-24)
I have several hopes for my church regarding social justice. I hope that we become a church that breaks out of the boxes that church tradition tries to impose upon the evangelical church -- namely, that evangelical churches are not supposed to be involved with improving the social conditions of people in this world. My hope is that members of Vineyard Columbus would seek to walk in the shoes of those whose perspectives are shaped by poverty, racial oppression, and personal suffering. My hope is that the tilt of the hearts of Vineyard Columbus members would be toward the poor (and not just the rich), toward the sick (and not just the well), and toward peacemaking. I have a hope that Vineyard Columbus would not exist for itself, but for Christ and for the world.
Rich Nathan is the pastor of the Vineyard Church in Columbus, Ohio, which is the co-sponsor with Sojourners of next week's Justice Revival. Click here for more details.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Rich,
"namely, that evangelical churches are not supposed to be involved with improving the social conditions of people in this world."
This may be a true statement in a very limited number of churches. The churches I have served and the denomination I belong to have always done both. I also worked for the Salvation Army for three years recruiting volunteers and raising money in counties that didn't have a S.A. Corp (church). In the 40+ counties I served I don't remember an evangelical church that fits your model. Your premise seems to be a gross generalization.
How about finding those evangelical churches that do both, and lavish praise upon them. I think you would find more traction than the tact your taking in this article.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 8, 2008 5:29 PM
There is a new book that understands the changes that society is today, and applies spiritual, logical and common sense solutions to these problems. The book is titled: REAL LOVE. REAL ISSUES. REAL SOLUTIONS, by Johnnie Newkirk Jr. @ www.xlibris.com or www.amazon.com This book deals with current social, lifestyle, political, religious, health and community issues, that are not just facing the United States, but the World community as well. It's a good read. However, it is very blunt, and pulls no punches and spares not on, not even the church.
Posted by: Johnnie Newkirk Jr. | April 8, 2008 7:28 PM
Bit of a straw-man there Rich. I can't think of a church I've ever been involved with that didn't take both the salvation of souls and the "social Gospel" seriously.
Posted by: Gordon | April 8, 2008 9:10 PM
Not a straw man. Not at all. I can remember growing up hearing the more fundamentalist-minded churches saying that "social action" was a diversion away from the Gospel.
It's really a good thing that those of you who are objecting to Pastor Nathan's comments don't feel that way and don't see evidence of it in your churches. Maybe things really have changed. But I remember when many churches thought that "saving souls" was the only important action a church could be involved in.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | April 8, 2008 9:42 PM
Don,
I would say churches respond to what they believe is lack of balance one way or the other. Our organization historically didn't wear our good deeds on our sleeve because we didn't want to be confused with the unbalanced Social Gospel. Most Social Gospel organizations from the turn of the last century are gone. Those who keep saving souls the priority followed closely by serving the needy are still around.
Even with our history our new General Superintendent (our head guy) is challenging our churches to do even more in serving the poor. That can be a challenge to us all. Once again, celebrating those churches that get it right would be much more affective than Nathan's straw man.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 8, 2008 10:26 PM
Very little in the Gospel of John records anything that Jesus said. He certainly never spoke of "his" kingdom . He spoke of the rule of heaven and said it is here. The Gospel of John is from over a century after Jesus's life and contradicts earlier gospel records on several points. It may contain truth, but very little of the words of Jesus. It is a theological document favoring a particular interpretation. The idea that other eyewitnesses saw the dead raised or heard Jesus say I am the way the truth and the life and then forgot to record these things is not credible.
That said, I like the aspiration to both worship God and serve those she created.
Jeff. The Quakers and many others who believe in social justice are still here and those who care for the poor are still all over the world. Evangelical Christians don't own the truth, and don't control the door to any kingdom but their own.
Posted by: jonabark | April 8, 2008 10:55 PM
Jeff: I believe the title of Rich's piece is What Doing Justice Means for MY Church. And, as for your last statement, I presume Rich writes this piece with a greater interest in being effective than affective.
Posted by: canucklehead | April 8, 2008 11:29 PM
In an effort to find an active church from my denomination that is located in a community where I volunteer for an urban non profit I found one on the internet that I had never seen before. Maybe this is their first webpage. I wondered why they have been so quiet all these years I have been in the community. I am a little concerned that there is nothing about social justice on their web pages even though they are in the heart of an urban neighborhood full of the minorities I am working with. I am also concerned that the website seems preoccupied with their building and church history.
I'm trying to decide if they are overly modest about anything that they are doing in the community or if they lack imagination about their potential. We should be doing everything we can to revitalize churches in the urban communities that have changed over the years do to population shifts. While our parents practiced a pattern of escape we should look for creative ways of reintegrating our urban centers both racially, ethnically and economically. The churches of every denomination should continue play a significant role in this.
I'm trying to get up the courage to go visit this church and see if I can find anyone in their membership that would share my interest in this urban community that lies right under their noses. I would appreciate finding some comradery and encouragement for such a vision both physiallya and spiriturally. I realize that this community has changed a great deal over the years and that I might find an aging membership that is barely holding its own as an organization and keeping a pastor in the pulpit. Yet they have planted a resource in that community that could be used for a great deal of good.
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | April 9, 2008 4:22 AM
Social justice as Jesus taught it also includes marriage be defined as a man and a woman. The New Testament writers demanded even more, that "as" Christians, we also see the family and social goals as a committment of good husbands and good wives loving each other as Jesus loved the Church. Having good and well-behaved children were even a qualification for leadership within the Christian community. Let us strive to always have the whole truth and nothing but the truth lead the Church in an age where the chaos of "anything goes" is seriously harming millions and millions of people.
Posted by: Study Polycarp | April 9, 2008 8:35 AM
Sounds good to me. As a housebound, mostly bedridden fifty year old, it always strikes me as ironic when I hear my neighbors' car doors close religiously each Sunday morning but they don't come, call or offer help to me of any kind. My door is yards from theirs.
They go on church group outings often; when I asked shortly after moving here if any members of their church could help me out in anyway - like maybe with our inability to locate a meals on wheels program - she gave me a blank stare and a rather overly emphatic "No! Nothing like that..." It was pretty clear that church group activities were confined to visiting local museums and restaurants, and that this was how she wanted it to stay!
They're senior citizens, between 65 and 70, each in excellent health. I hear those doors slam each Sunday morning and have this feeling that their brand of Catholicism is focused, like that I knew of many relatives and friends growing up, on one thing only: scoring points for getting into heaven. And you score the most points, according to what the church seems to emphasize, with ritual and doctrine.
I'd say a new emphasis is greatly needed, and entirely supported by scripture.
Paul - Original Faith
Posted by: Paul Maurice Martin | April 9, 2008 9:15 AM
Social justice as Jesus taught it also includes marriage be defined as a man and a woman. The New Testament writers demanded even more, that "as" Christians, we also see the family and social goals as a committment of good husbands and good wives loving each other as Jesus loved the Church. Having good and well-behaved children were even a qualification for leadership within the Christian community.
Actually, Jesus didn't teach that explicitly -- his focus was on divorce and adulterous relationships (which were issues in Israel in those days) and not on homosexual conduct (which wasn't). Even with the "family" issues, it was more of a case that "we need to have our act together compared to the rest of the world."
I am a little concerned that there is nothing about social justice on their web pages even though they are in the heart of an urban neighborhood full of the minorities I am working with. I am also concerned that the website seems preoccupied with their building and church history.
Bet you any money there is a divide by color, culture and class, especially if the church is "evangelical." Mine is one of the very, very few evangelical churches anyway that even addresses the issue of social justice (and not just as a side issue -- you hear it in the pulpit as well) because of evangelicalism's generally narrow focus on "saving souls"; in the conservative church in which I grew up it was all theology and pretty much still is.
Any, at best, the church should be counter-cultural -- but because of its relative acceptance in American society it's become only a sub-culture.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 9, 2008 10:56 AM
Jonabark,
Reread my post, I said most Social gospel groups are gone. Were/are the Quakers primarily a Social Gospel group?
"Evangelical Christians don't own the truth, and don't control the door to any kingdom but their own."
Why would you address this comment to me? I make no such claim. I only say that the author over generalizes about evangelicals. Get a grip.
Canuckle,
"Jeff: I believe the title of Rich's piece is What Doing Justice Means for MY Church. And, as for your last statement, I presume Rich writes this piece with a greater interest in being effective than affective."
Can he write about his church without tearing someone else down (even if it is a strawman of his own making)? Presume all you want, I can only go by the words on the page. What his church is doing is great, us evangelicals (the majority) who are already doing this welcome him.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 11:35 AM
Don,
You often accuse conservative contributors of this sight of overgeneralizing. Could you read the article again and give me your take? Not trying to put you in a box, just want to hear your honest opinion. Thanks.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 11:50 AM
Jonabark,
Sorry, shouldn't have said "Get a Grip". Please accept my apology.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 12:09 PM
Jeff
The Quakers are a community of spiritual friends who have always had strong social positions as an integral part of their spiritual commitments. Against war, against slavery, against economic injustice. They have been functioning for over 300 years. They are probably the longest existing "emergent" faith body in that they have no official statement of faith or dogma.
I can be a bit too argumentative but generally disagree with premises that divide folk between the saved and unsaved. I have been there and done that and found profound liberation in leaving such notions of God. I am very skeptical about the ability of a mortal human to know much about eternal truth, but I am quite sure that the Bible is neither "literal" nor a transcription of God's thoughts. It is a record of one culture's relation to the idea of divinity. Human fallibility, historical error and fictive fabrication can be persuasively shown in the old and new testament writings, and as far as I'm concerned , any system of belief which attempts to claim that the Bible is all true and a kind of letter from God is naive, or deceived or deceiving. Often those who claim to have a corner on truth are attracted to extreme authoritarianism or extreme self righteousness. Many people gravitate to the Bible because it offers an authoritativeness to which they can connect.
That said, I still love the Bible and know the language and enjoy talking with others who share this vocabulary , even when we completely disagree.
Also there is often much to be said for getting saved, and I cannot argue with the power of a spiritual experience that liberates someone from selfishness and destructive behaviors and ideas. I think such experiences come in many forms and are part of a lifelong spiritual journey.
Thanks for the apology . Your "Get a grip" admonition is not a problem. I often need to do just that, and yesterday was one of those times.
Peace in God's everlasting love.
Posted by: jonabark | April 9, 2008 2:55 PM
Rich,
My only comment is to be more explicit with the understand towards which the ministries of social justice and mercy are pointing. The goal is not to simply "improve the lot of human beings in this world," or "improving the social conditions of people in this world". Rather the goal is to make known and realized (by God's Spirit) the reign of God - the basileia tou theou. This vision is one of transformation of the world, including people being fed, peace in multiple forms, people being empowered to live out the calling on the lives, and flourishing for all, as we sing praise and offer glory to God. This is a very different telos than "improvement of lot".
Shalom,
Dustin
Posted by: Dustin | April 9, 2008 3:59 PM
I have started to use the phrase "biblical justice" instead of "social justice" with my congregation, because I am aware that the image of a social-justice church tends to be one of a church in which talking about and working on "social justice" overshadows the explicit proclamation and incarnation of the Gospel. I was a child during what some call the civil-rights movement or era, and over the ensuing years I observed that the mainline churches more often addressed systemic injustice and Evangelical churches were more likely to give direct aid to individuals in need. I have heard Evangelical church folks calling the mainline churches "liberal" (not a good attribute in most Evang. circles!) and the mainliners calling us Evangelicals something akin to head-in-the-sand, lift-yourself-by-your-bootstraps fundamentalists. I am so happy to see that in recent years, and particularly for the last 12-18 months, the popular Evangelical press at-large is focusing on issues of Biblical justice as such, and how churches are addressing or could address those issues. This is a change from the past that my younger colleagues may not recognize, since they aren't old enough to have seen how it used to be. The Kingdom advances!
Posted by: Robiin Swieringa | April 9, 2008 4:49 PM
Jonabark,
I know the Quakers value the things you listed. My question was, Were/are they primarily a Social Gospel Group? I believe Quakers predate the Social Gospel movement.
The denomination I belong to also values most of these things and others, but we distanced ourselves from the Social Gospel movement. Their unbalance view doomed them to being short term players.
I believe a more positive take from Rich would have opened up the conversation instead of polarizing the sides. This is often the case with SOJO authors. We might have even seen posters admit shortcomings in this area and be challenged to be more outward focused.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 5:30 PM
rich nathan. i can't imagine where you comefrom. you said that evangelical churches are not supposed to be involved in improving social conditions. you said that evangelicals are not interested in social justice. please tell me where you get this information.
the problem you needa to study is - who gets to decide what we should hope for, do, say? we don't all have the same goals, abilities, thoughts etc. so if ones efforts don't match your efforts then what?
your sojo'ness is showing.
Posted by: jerry | April 9, 2008 6:28 PM
"I believe a more positive take from Rich would have opened up the conversation instead of polarizing the sides."
Read post above. See what I mean. Maybe we should celebrate those on the left and right who serve the poor in hopes those at each end who don't would be encouraged and challenged to take up the cause. Whether you think one side or the other has a flawed motivation or not the end result is that poor people are served.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 6:49 PM
I do not often comment on these blogs but I do not feel like I can let this pass.
The reason I left the organized church was the lack of compassion, desire to serve, judgmentalism and hatred I found in many of its members. I see those same attitudes reflected in those who comment on these blogs. I am going to hope that all of you are actually out there serving the underserved and working for social justice so you can base your rude criticisms on experience, however, your desire for perfection in others is not what God requires. I am reasonably certain that you do not demand the same perfection in yourselves. It is disheartening to read these comments and know that if someone who had questions about Christianity saw them they would turn away. If I did not believe that God was much more and desired much more than that I would turn away.
RIch, thank you for an article that was inspiring and humbling. You are not perfect but God does not ask you to be, He asks you to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly before Him. May He light your path as you continue to do so. I wish i could find a community of faith that worked towards the same goals.
Posted by: Val | April 9, 2008 7:11 PM
lloyd crump,
Honey or vinegar, your choice. I think you may find some common ground with some of these you have listed above. You may even desire some of the same things, though you may have a different opinion on how to accomplish these things. A little more honey and a lot less vinegar may open up a discussion instead of an argument. We might even learn a few things from each other.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 7:28 PM
Val,
Sorry if my words have offended you. I do not demand perfection from Rich. Him and I are on the same page in respect to serving the poor. I just don't want to be unfairly judged with his broad brush. It just doesn't make sense to me for him to polarize people who agree with you.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 7:36 PM
A thought:
In an ideal world, Christians and Muslims, Catholics and Pentecostals, would be engaged in a friendly rivalry as to who could best help the poor, without thought of who was gaining the greatest numbers and influence. This is, however, not an ideal world.
Philip Jenkins
The Next Christendom
An additional note is that I work at an inner-city ministry that is doing its best to show both the light, and the love, of Christ, and is trying to avoid the dichotomy that NT Wright points out. What sometimes makes me cynical about Evangelical churches is when we get calls from Christians who turn the poor into "souls on legs" and ask not about hunger, thirst, loneliness, cold, or otherwise, but ask instead about statistics regarding "how many souls we've saved." This saddens me for various reasons, including the fact that many of the people in this inner-city community have a stronger more vibrant faith than anyone I've ever met, and yet because they are poor, they are immediately labelled as "faithless" and in need of "God's salvation." So what is happening here? Are our Evangelical churches avoiding a "social gospel" and pursuing a "health and wellness gospel" instead?
Posted by: DN | April 9, 2008 8:27 PM
Jeff, I haven't had much time to comment today, and I probably won't for the next several days.
I'm puzzled over the nature of the issue that you find with Rich Nathan. It seems that you both are on the same page. His commentary, along with his quote from NT Wright, seems to be more a self-admonishment than anything else. He doesn't want his church to fall into the trap that Wright talks about.
I just don't quite see any offense in what Pastor Nathan wrote. If the comments don't apply to your church, you can be glad and be thankful.
Finally, in my re-reading of Pastor Nathan's posting, I note that the title tells us this is part one of a five-part series. Why not wait and read how Pastor Nathan develops his ideas before coming down so hard on him? Fair enough?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | April 9, 2008 9:48 PM
DN,
These same people might ask the same questions to any ministry they have an interest in. To your question,
"Are our Evangelical churches avoiding a "social gospel" and pursuing a "health and wellness gospel" instead?" If you look at giving stats the answer would be no.
By the way, tomorrow I'll be involved in a food drop in our community through our newly organized Love INC. This group is a partnership of our community's churches both mainline and evangelical who are committed to love people In the Name of Christ (INC). We can choose to sit around and talk about who does it better, we chose to just get it done. Look into Love INC for your community.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 9:58 PM
Don,
Fair enough, lets both do that and see what turns up.
You're right, Pastor Nathan and I are on the same team. I don't understand the continual bashing of evangelicals from SOJO writers. I don't think it accomplishes anything but pushing people away. Let's see if he turns it around.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 10:09 PM
Jeff,
I have to say from experience there is a strong evangelical tradition that values soul saving over justice. I'm glad to hear your church doesn't fit that mold. (by no means a tongue-in cheek statement)
This tradition speaks of giving, but of tithes to the church first then to others if you have anything to spare. Charity falls to third on the list if the church has a building program underway.
Then, speaking of giving but by no means assuming your church fits this mold, most of the offerings stay inside the church to support programs, staff, and its members. Minute percentages go outside the church while money is also spent maintaining buildings that are used two to three times a week to support its members while contributing nothing to its local economy's tax base.
So little goes to charity, which often meets real needs and needs to be done, but does not always contribute to long-term justice.
Also, if Sojo seems to be hard on evangelicals, I think it is safe to say if you know what its leaders are saying and writing outside this site that their focus is on voices in the religious right that are pushing a harsh agenda in damaging ways. In context, it is not intended to be an all-inclusive term, though I could see how word choice could lead to a misunderstanding that could result in offense.
Ultimately, I think the goal here is to point people back to the teachings of Jesus and how they relate to the public square so oppresive systems of power can be undone through the power of the spirit and charity be no longer needed. That's not to say its folks aren't involved in charitable action, but as an organization pointed towrd changing the wind of political discussion, the focus of the discussion is what to do with policy rather than what to do for charity.
Posted by: J. D. | April 10, 2008 1:52 AM
Rich Nathan seems to be getting it from all sides. Here he (along with other Sojourners writers) is accused of being overly critical of other evangelicals. Back home in Columbus, some members of his church apparently didn't greet his decision to co-host Sojourners' Justice Revival next week with warm enthusiasm. Read his "pastor's newsletter" where he defends the decision:
http://www.vineyardcolumbus.org/news/letter/index.asp
Ah, the perils and pitfalls of being a church leader. But didn't Jesus say we would be misunderstood?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | April 10, 2008 7:01 AM
Don,
much thanks for the reference to Nathan's newsletter. You and I are native Buckeyes, and we both know how politically conservative many evangelicals are in Ohio. I imagine that many folk in the congregation were very unhappy that their church is now linked to Wallis and Sojourners.
Posted by: carl copas | April 10, 2008 12:38 PM
Seeking social justice is a an area of common ground between conservative and liberal Christians. I commend Vinyard and its pastor for the courage make their voices known.
What I believe lies at the heart of this issue are two extreme misunderstandings. The first is the misunderstanding of the primary meaning of the word "justice" in the bible. Biblical justice is not criminal justice (making sure the bad guys get punished) or procedural justice (making sure everyone plays by the rules). Biblical justice is about changing the systems that produce a permanently impoverished underclass. It is about "…improving the lot of human beings and the world, rescuing the poor from their misery…" as N T. Wright states.
The second gross misunderstanding is the difference between "charity" and justice. True biblical justice is not charity. Charity toward individuals address an immediate need. Charity is always necessary and should never be neglected. All churches are very good at charity but poor on seeking true biblical justice—advocating real changes in the systems that produce unjust situations. Seeking social justice often offends, charity never does.
I think pastors like Rick Nathan and his Vinyard church and Jim Wallis and Sojourners are doing a commendable job in clarifying these two misunderstandings.
Posted by: jackfate | April 11, 2008 10:15 AM
As a member of Rich's Church, The Vineyard Church of Columbus, I also commend Rich's commitment to serve the poor and seek "justice" However, I take great offense with our church "partnering" with Sojourners and the agenda that they are pushing. After careful review and study of their web site, how does a mission that states as its objectives "to counter the Religious Right" and contains numerous attacks on politically conservative "evangelicals" be a truly "christian" organization? Paul Edwards wrote in Town Hall: "The new voices of the Religious Left – Rick Warren, Joel Hunter, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, et al – are defining down what it means to be an evangelical by making the symptoms of man’s sin (poverty, disease, etc.) a priority rather than addressing the cause of those symptoms (sin) and the cure found in the gospel of Jesus Christ."
As a member of Vineyard Columbus, we could have done this whole thing without Sojouners and would have had a greater impact, in my opinion, without all the politicizing.
Posted by: David S. | April 11, 2008 11:20 AM
True biblical justice is not charity. Charity toward individuals address an immediate need. Charity is always necessary and should never be neglected. All churches are very good at charity but poor on seeking true biblical justice -— advocating real changes in the systems that produce unjust situations. Seeking social justice often offends, charity never does.
That's exactly the point I've been trying to make all this time on this blog -- thank you so much for doing so. A more just society empowers people to take control of their own lives and take care of their own business rather than keep people dependent on handouts. But for that to happen, sometimes structural changes are required -- and that's what some people fight because, I believe, they feel they're entitled to whatever they have (rather than recognizing that it's a gift from God to be used to improve the lots of others).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 11, 2008 11:24 AM
Paul Edwards wrote in Town Hall: "The new voices of the Religious Left -– Rick Warren, Joel Hunter, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, et al –- are defining down what it means to be an evangelical by making the symptoms of man’s sin (poverty, disease, etc.) a priority rather than addressing the cause of those symptoms (sin) and the cure found in the gospel of Jesus Christ."
Edwards is both right and wrong. He is correct in noting that the problem is sin; however, he misses the mark in that that we evangelicals often have a narrow view of what sin is and its consequences, which is why we need the "religious left" (which, really, isn't that far left) to point out things we evangelicals haven't generally addressed. Joel Hunter and Rick Warren part of such "religious left"? They would laugh.
Anyway, some of that sin is societal, which some conservatives would disagree with (I've heard Charles Stanley make that denial).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 11, 2008 11:36 AM
As a member of Vineyard Columbus, we could have done this whole thing without Sojouners and would have had a greater impact, in my opinion, without all the politicizing.
David S., my wife and I plan to attend the Justice Revival at Vineyard Columbus for at least one session next week. To be completely honest, I doubt whether I would otherwise ever set foot into your church. I'm not trying to be offensive (you possibly wouldn't want to attend my church either), but I'm just trying to point out that you cannot know what kind of impact your church's 'partnering' with Sojourners will have.
I think you are selling Jim Wallis and Sojourners short by claiming that they are "defining down" what it means to be an evangelical Christian. Do I agree with Rev Wallis? Certainly not--probably not on a lot of things; Pastor Nathan said the same thing in his newsletter. But I'm not going to let my disagreements prevent me from hearing what he has to say (and, perhaps, what the Holy Spirit has to say through him).
Perhaps you might consider attending yourself, to learn what they are really about, before prejudging it and its potential impact. My guess is that they aren't as far away from you as you think.
I would love it if my church would sponsor a 'justice revival,' whether partnered with Sojourners or not. It's a message that a lot of American Christians need to hear.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | April 11, 2008 12:32 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?