What is a Justice Revival? (part 5 of 5 by Rich Nathan)
Jim Wallis, in his book The Great Awakening said,
Imagine something called Justice Revivals in the powerful tradition of revivals past, but focusing on the great moral issues of our time. Imagine linking the tradition of Billy Graham with the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. Imagine a new generation of young people catching fire and offering their gifts, talents, and lives in a new spiritual movement for social justice. Imagine such revivals taking place in cities’ great convention centers, but resulting in thousands of small groups for ongoing discipleship, training, and action in every neighborhood of those cities. Imagine disillusioned believers coming back to faith after many years of alienation, while other seekers discover the power of faith for the first time. Imagine social movements rising out of spiritual revival and actually changing the wind of both our culture and our politics. Imagine a fulfillment in our time of the words of the prophet Amos: ‘Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.’ Just imagine.
We plan on three nights of preaching and worship. Tonight, Wednesday, April 16, we will call people to make a commitment to Christ. Matt Redman, the writer of many of our worship songs, and his band will join us for worship. On Thursday night, we will call people to work for justice in the Central Ohio community and we will host the Raymond Wise Gospel Choir as our worship leaders. And on Friday night, we will focus on issues of global justice. Worship we will be led by Vineyard Columbus’ new worship pastor, Clarence Church, together with some worship leaders from other churches in Central Ohio.
Then on Saturday, thousands of members of Central Ohio churches will fan out into our community and to dozens of servant evangelism projects such as fixing up local schools, visiting nursing homes, and working on homes for Habitat for Humanity.
We have several goals that we hope to accomplish through the Justice Revival. First of all, we want to transform the public face of Christianity here in Central Ohio. I want our city to know that we followers of Jesus are not at war with our city. I want Christians to be Jeremiah 29:7 people, who “seek the peace and prosperity of the city [where we live] and pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, [we] too will prosper.”
I want hundreds of people to be saved through this Justice Revival and to come into fellowship with local churches throughout our community. I want to see churches across Central Ohio united in the practical service of our city and in reaching our city for Christ. Many of Columbus’ largest churches are already involved in helping to host this Justice Revival including First Church of God, Grove City Nazarene, Faith Ministries, Reynoldsburg United Methodist Church, First Community Church, Rhema Christian Center, and New Salem Baptist. We also have several other Vineyards involved.
We particularly want to call attention to the condition of children in our city by having local churches adopt local public schools for the purpose of mentoring kids. And we want to call attention to global issues of justice especially the Darfur, the tragedy of global sex trafficking, the 30,000 children a day who die of malnutrition and preventable diseases, and the billion people on our planet who live on less than $1 a day.
Through the Justice Revival we want to help redefine what it means to be a Christian disciple so that thousands of Christians will understand that they can’t be good followers of Jesus without also committing to Jesus’ agenda, which includes feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, giving care to the sick, and visiting the prisoner (Matthew 25:35-36).
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
Pastor Nathan:
I'll see you tonight. I'm looking forward to it.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | April 16, 2008 10:22 AM
Sounds like you have a great program planned for all who will be attending. It sounds a lot like the last Promise Keepers event that I attended in CO. I will pray that everything will go well and that all will be safe.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 16, 2008 12:07 PM
I wish he'd mentioned the Holy Spirit at least once.
Posted by: Gordon | April 16, 2008 12:17 PM
Rich,
may God bless the Justice Revival in Columbus.
Gordon: "I wish he'd mentioned the Holy Spirit at least once."
Gordon, will you join me in praying for an outpouring of the Spirit on the Revival?
Posted by: carl copas | April 16, 2008 1:06 PM
I hope that what you're doing helps and that such movements gather momentum. That said, we're in a much different situation than in the 60s.
At that time, major corporations didn't have the hold on government that they do today - when their decisive role in campaign financing and their tremendous and systematic lobbying efforts makes government far more responsive to them than to the American people.
Real power today is with the CEOs and boards of big business. And we didn't elect them. We can protest, but they can also do exactly what they want anyway. It seems to me that's a problem for a democracy.
Paul - Original Faith
Posted by: Paul Maurice Martin | April 16, 2008 1:13 PM
Pharisee says: "I wish he'd mentioned the Holy Spirit at least once."
Yes, because as we all know unless you say the words, He cannot be present.
Posted by: RJohnson | April 16, 2008 1:58 PM
I wish he'd mentioned the Holy Spirit at least once.
I'd have preferred more trinitarian references and doxology myself.
Posted by: aaron | April 16, 2008 3:00 PM
"I wish he'd mentioned the Holy Spirit at least once."
I bet he's not even a Christian. He's probably a devil-worshipper.
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 16, 2008 4:05 PM
Sounds like Convoy of Hope. Hope it goes well.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 16, 2008 5:58 PM
"will you join me in praying for an outpouring of the Spirit on the Revival?"
Gladly
Posted by: Gordon | April 16, 2008 10:01 PM
I was there last night. Guess what? The Gospel was preached. The Holy Spirit was poured out. Pastor Wallis gave a personal testimony, telling us how he came to Christ. Pastor Nathan gave an altar call. People came forward. They made commitments to Christ. Many also made commitments to dedicate their lives to Jesus' ministry to the poor. (That was right out of John Wesley's playbook.)
This wasn't a political event. Pastor Nathan said the political system in the USA is broken. The Republican and Democratic parties are broken. Politics won't fix our nation's problems. None of the speakers said a word about what government should or shouldn't do. Instead, this event was a call for the churches and for Christians in central Ohio to become Jesus for our city and region.
I just wish I could go tonight and tomorrow night.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | April 17, 2008 7:21 AM
Don,
Thanks for the report. Sounds like they were laying a foundation they'll build upon the next couple of nights. Your report tells us what that foundation is. Good job brother.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 17, 2008 9:08 AM
It was a nice event last night, but I was troubled when Jim Wallis said that the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are more radical than Karl Marx, Che Guevara, and Ho Chi Min. I don't appreciate lumping Jesus in with murders and thugs in any context and I was personally offended by that statement.
Also, both Nathan and Wallis discussed how politics has failed to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, help the poor, etc. And because of their failure, the church has to step up.
This is totally backwards. The CHURCH has failed to do all of those things, not politics or the government. Jesus called his church to do those things, not the government. So we shouldn't whine and complain about the government not doing things they were never supposed to do.
Posted by: Nathan | April 17, 2008 9:14 AM
Nathan: "This is totally backwards. The CHURCH has failed to do all of those things, not politics or the government. Jesus called his church to do those things, not the government. So we shouldn't whine and complain about the government not doing things they were never supposed to do."
In part I agree with you. The blood of the poor who die in this world from hunger and neglect should well be on the hands of the Church, for they have turned away from their calling to be salt and light in this world.
Here in the US the conservatives take issue with the words and actions of those who would try to help these hungry and dying souls, heaping criticism on those who would try to save even a few of them from starving to death.
Nathan, instead of criticizing the words of those who preached last night, how about leaving that whitewashed sepulchre of yours and going out to help them feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and minister to the least of these?
Do you think you can stop being a Pharisee long enough to at least help one individual?
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 9:21 AM
Nathan: "So we shouldn't whine and complain about the government not doing things they were never supposed to do."
No, we should instead insist that our churches stop their multi-million dollar building programs, erecting these multi-media, mammon-honoring monoliths, and instead taking that money and investing it in their communities. If churches did that God would not have to use government money to feed the hungry.
But instead God's bride, the Church, is more interested in how nice the house looks. So God goes out and calls to labor those who will do the work.
Nathan, you want government out of the social work business? Fine. Get the churches of this country to do the work God has called them to do. If the churches were doing their job we wouldn't need the government to do it.
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 9:26 AM
Nathan: "It was a nice event last night, but I was troubled when Jim Wallis said that the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are more radical than Karl Marx, Che Guevara, and Ho Chi Min. I don't appreciate lumping Jesus in with murders and thugs in any context and I was personally offended by that statement."
Nathan...these folks are preparing to do some work that will help people. What are you doing to help people besides criticizing those who are working?
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 9:28 AM
RJohnson,
How on earth are you qualified to assume that I am a "pharisee" that hasn't helped "one individual"? You don't know me, you don't know what I do, and you shouldn't write things like that. This forum could be a mature dialogue about serious issues, but you choose instead to make personal attacks and offbeat assumptions? Why?
I think it's fair to criticize some of the words that were spoken last night. But I made it clear that it was a good event and I appreciate the call to social justice.
Posted by: Nathan | April 17, 2008 9:30 AM
Imagine linking the tradition of Billy Graham with the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr.
This is the story of a meeting between Garham and King and the two came to the understanding that Graham would do what God called him to do in the stadiums of the world and King would do it in the streets and halls of gov't. Both men supported each others work and understood what God had called them to do as individuals.
A challenge with Wallis and Co. that I have read in their articles is that they want us all to be the same - almost forgetting the individual. If we aren't on the same page with Wallis - we are not working the Gospel the way Wallis sees it. I believe that God has called us as individuals to do His work in many areas and not that we are not in favor or supportive of other issues. But God has called us to work in this area and to add in something else - delutes our effectiveness.
A friend of mine has a ministry that works with at risk inner city kids. In their work they are dealing with social justice issues - but that is not their focus. If they were to focus on that - the kids would not get the assistance they need so badly.
Blessings-
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 17, 2008 9:37 AM
Good points, Moderatelad.
Posted by: Nathan | April 17, 2008 9:40 AM
Don,
Thanks for the first-hand reports!
Eric
Posted by: Eric | April 17, 2008 9:49 AM
Moderatelad, there are indeed many who are called, and many are the tasks to which people can be called. But can you show me from Scripture where Jesus called anyone to criticize how those in the field were working?
I have listened for years to conservatives complain about taxes, complain about liberal programs wasting money, complain about special interest groups funneling money to lazy poor people who will not work. Yet when you ask them if they are tithing they say it is none of your business. When you ask them what their church is doing they ask you who you are to judge.
Moderatelad, as an old pastor of mine used to say, the cattle on a thousand hills and every potato in those hills belongs to God. God is sovereign over all. If His bride, the Church, will not do the work of feeding His children He will call someone who will.
God will not be mocked, moderatelad. Whether it is tithes or taxes, it all belongs to God. Do you think God will allow His children to starve simply because His church will not feed them?
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 10:08 AM
It was a nice event last night, but I was troubled when Jim Wallis said that the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are more radical than Karl Marx, Che Guevara, and Ho Chi Minh.
Well, in fact they are. Because those guys spoke only of political revolution; Jesus speaks of a heart-and-mind change which fundamentally affects relationships, and I can think of nothing more radical. I often think of what an evangelist might tell a crowd of Chinese: "Jesus can make you love your Japanese brother!" If that's not radical, well ...
A challenge with Wallis and Co. that I have read in their articles is that they want us all to be the same - almost forgetting the individual. If we aren't on the same page with Wallis - we are not working the Gospel the way Wallis sees it.
Oh, I would disagree -- after all, Wallis has done just that for decades. It's just that the "social justice" ministry has been neglected for so long it's become more of a focus today.
A seminary student I know told me about four concentrations that students he worked with have (I can't remember them all right now). However, they all meet and pray together regularly for all their ministries, even though they are not personally involved. (I know one of those is social justice.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 17, 2008 10:31 AM
Oh RJohnson, you are so misinformed. In fact, I do know those who spoke last night very well. I was a member of Vineyard Columbus for five years and I know that Pastor Nathan doesn't try to supress conversation or even criticism, as you seem intent on doing.
I wasn't judging anyone and my criticism was directed to a specific comment correlating the words of Jesus to Che, Marx, etc. My friend, that is worthy of much, much criticism. As is the idea that government should have solved all of our social problems. That's just not biblical.
Posted by: Nathan | April 17, 2008 10:33 AM
RJ, the conservative evangelical Christians have been literally going to the worst and porest place on earth and giving their lives to make things better.
Posted by: Little Guy | April 17, 2008 10:50 AM
Nathan is making a reasonable point, and calling him names isn't responsive. If Rich Nathan and friends want to ramp-up a social justice initiative, that is a great thing, and hopefully it will succeed. But they are still responsible for their words, and saying that Jesus is more radical than three notable communists is an unfortunate juxtaposition.
Posted by: Gordon | April 17, 2008 11:10 AM
Gordon: "But they are still responsible for their words, and saying that Jesus is more radical than three notable communists is an unfortunate juxtaposition."
Why? Did not the Bible say that those who followed Jesus turned the world upside down? Surely that is a more radical statement of their impact than anything a Communist, Capitalist, Socialist, or other leader has ever done.
Why do you have a problem with the challenge Jesus puts before the world? It is the most radial, far-reaching challenge ever given to us. We, as Christians, are told to go forward and be salt and light. Do you even begin to understand the scope of that?
I am truly sorry that your vision of God's commission is so small that you feel it is inappropriate to call it more radical than ANYTHING that ANYONE has put before us in the past.
You want radical? Compare the most radical thing that Che, Marx, Lenin, Castro, or Mao said to the Beatitudes, the Great Commission, or virtually anything Jesus said that His followers would be characterized by. Their "radical" statements pale in comparison.
I'm sorry you can't or won't see that.
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 11:43 AM
But they are still responsible for their words, and saying that Jesus is more radical than three notable communists is an unfortunate juxtaposition.
As I mentioned above, that was the point because Communism could go only so far and I don't think many of us who have grown up in "Christendom" realize just how radical Jesus is, especially when He walked the earth. (In fact, it was His "radical" tendencies that drew me to Him in the first place.)
I mean, consider Paul/Saul, who tried to destroy the church. Augustine, who was a sexual libertine. And so on, and so on ... you're trying to say that Jesus wasn't a revolutionary? Heck, His radicalism goes way beyond politics!
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 17, 2008 11:52 AM
"I am truly sorry that your vision of God's commission is so small that you feel it is inappropriate to call it more radical than ANYTHING that ANYONE has put before us in the past."
Please don't try to put thoughts in my head. Try to respond to what I said rather than what you imagine I meant.
What I said was that it was an unfortunate juxtaposition. I'm sure Wallis could have thought of radicals that would have been unobjectionable to anyone. He chose three communists. Others on this forum have noted his past liking for Marxism - perhaps that explains it.
Posted by: Gordon | April 17, 2008 11:54 AM
I was troubled when Jim Wallis said that the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are more radical than Karl Marx, Che Guevara, and Ho Chi Min. I don't appreciate lumping Jesus in with murders and thugs in any context
I would suggest that Jesus is more radical than they precisely because he wasn't a "murderer and thug" like they. Instead, the Sermon on the Mount offers an alternative to the kind of reliance on violence of Marx, Guevara, and Ho. And as Rick Nowlin points out, Jesus talks about an internal revolution, not a mere external one.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | April 17, 2008 11:59 AM
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 10:08 AM
Whether it is tithes or taxes, it all belongs to God.
It does. It is just that my taxes - I have no control as to where they go. Tithes - I understand where they go and the people that need it the most get the money. (at least in my church and the ministries that I support)
Wallis and Co. have been very critical of people in ministry here on this site. In some ways I tend to agree with him. But he is using his bully pulpit to blast them and then gets defensive when they do the same. Sojo and all have spent a lot of time and print chastizing Fawell - Dobson - Kennedy (D. James not Teddy) Joyce etc. (they have been very quiet about Paul and Jan of TBN - whatever) I even have had challenges with some of these - but I choose to cast the light on those that are doing God's work in a manner that I can support rather than give the light to people that I do not wish to highlite.
I support a ministry in MN that deals with at risk inner city kids. $0.84 cents of every dollor they get goes directly to material and programs that help them advance in our soceity. For every dollor that goes to the gov't for welfare - &0.27 cents goes to the person in need. I wish the gov't would be as efficent as they believe not-for-profits should be. NOW - the gov't has for years been trying to tax the offering plate of the church - after they have already taken their share from the that dollor of the person that worked to produce it.
Why does Wallis promote more gov't programs to work with at risk people when they get so little once the gov't takes their cut?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 17, 2008 12:00 PM
I was troubled when Jim Wallis said that the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are more radical than Karl Marx, Che Guevara, and Ho Chi Min. I don't appreciate lumping Jesus in with murders and thugs in any context
I would suggest that Jesus is more radical than they precisely because he wasn't a "murderer and thug" like they. Instead, the Sermon on the Mount offers an alternative to the kind of reliance on violence of Marx, Guevara, and Ho. And as Rick Nowlin points out, Jesus talks about an internal revolution, not a mere external one.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | April 17, 2008 12:01 PM
"Why does Wallis promote more gov't programs to work with at risk people when they get so little once the gov't takes their cut?"
Why does God's work in caring for the least of these have to be done by the government? Because the church is too busy building bigger sanctuaries, lobbying for faith-based initiative grants, and worrying about straining the gnats that other Christians are speaking.
Every dollar in your pocket belongs to God, doesn't it moderatelad? You rail at the inefficiencies of government programs? I agree! They are inefficient. But where are the churches???
God called the churches to this work. They have walked away, so God called (and drafted) other workers to it. You complain because the government programs are taking "your" money and using it inefficiently.
Fine.
If the church did it's job the government wouldn't have to. The church has failed, and God will not allow His children to suffer because of it. Every dollar spent by the government doing this work should be a slap in the face of every Christian in this nation.
Rather than complain how the government is doing the church's job, we should be complaining to our own congregations about why WE aren't doing that job. You want a tax cut? Fine...put more money in the offering plate and have your congregation feed some folks that are getting money from the government.
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 12:17 PM
Sojo and all have spent a lot of time and print chastizing Fawell - Dobson - Kennedy (D. James not Teddy) Joyce etc. (they have been very quiet about Paul and Jan of TBN - whatever)
One, when they were living Falwell and Kennedy consistently demonized even Christians who didn't agree with them and Dobson still does. Two, they all have partnered with unbelievers for the sake of cultural authority. Thus, the idea that they speak with God's voice is, to say the least, suspect. Prosperity teachers, on the other hand, do not generally engage in that kind of "ministry"; as such, it's a separate issue.
Because the church is too busy building bigger sanctuaries, lobbying for faith-based initiative grants, and worrying about straining the gnats that other Christians are speaking.
There's another issue as well. You see, "richer" churches generally are not located in the poorer neighborhoods, so the poor never darken their doors (they can't even get there). Therefore, folks who attend these churches have no concept of why they're in that state.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 17, 2008 12:40 PM
I'm amazed how quickly this discussion turned to Rev. Wallis' alleged support of "government programs." As I mentioned earlier, I heard nothing remotely sounding like stirring up support for government intervention or anti-poverty programs. I heard a lot about the church's responsibility to do the work of Jesus in caring for the poor.
Last night, Wallis seemed to be saying exactly those things that the anti-government-program people have wanted to hear--that it's our responsibility and that we can't rely on the political system to fix things. Why does it seem that some of you don't want to hear that from him?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | April 17, 2008 12:46 PM
"Why does it seem that some of you don't want to hear that from him?"
They are too comfortable in their warm homes, secure jobs, expensive church buildings, and nice cars to care about those that lack any of these things. It's easier to obfuscate the message by taking potshots at words, mincing with minutae as it were.
The conservative message regarding government programs is that they should be cut so the taxes can be returned to the people. The story does not end there. The churches need to then be ready with replacement programs for these people.
The easiest way to cut government programs is to eliminate the need for them. If the churches would take care of the poor in their own communities we would not need government programs.
And quite honestly it is easier to complain about how poor a job the government is doing than to look at the person in the mirror and inquire about the poor job that person is doing.
The church does not need tax breaks, faith based initiatives, or fewer government programs to do its work. It needs Christians to obey the commands of the Bible and insist that their churches do the job they have been given.
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 12:56 PM
"It was a nice event last night, but I was troubled when Jim Wallis said that the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are more radical than Karl Marx, Che Guevara, and Ho Chi Min. I don't appreciate lumping Jesus in with murders and thugs in any context and I was personally offended by that statement."
"But they are still responsible for their words, and saying that Jesus is more radical than three notable communists is an unfortunate juxtaposition."
Exhuming McCarthy
(Meet me at the book burning)
Exhuming McCarthy
(Meet me at the book burning)
Exhuming McCarthy
(Meet me at the book burning)
Exhuming McCarthy
(Meet me at the book burning)
(Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe)
Posted by: carl copas | April 17, 2008 12:59 PM
Don,
thanks for the report on last night's service. Wish I could have been there.
Posted by: carl copas | April 17, 2008 1:02 PM
Others on this forum have noted his past liking for Marxism - perhaps that explains it.
Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela have both said, essentially, "You know, Marx did have a point." Both were accused of being closet Marxists (though, especially in the case of King, nothing could be further from the truth). Does that mean that Wallis was a Marxist? Please.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 17, 2008 1:33 PM
I don't think it's ridiculous to object when Jesus is compared by implication to thugs, murders, and tyrants. Please don't try to paint me as something I'm not - I am not a Pharisee or a legalist of any description, and I'm not inclined to consign anyone to hell for any reason. Nor am I a Manichian as you seem to suggest. I don't think Jim Wallis will go to hell for his words, but I do think he could have chosen better examples.
Posted by: Gordon | April 17, 2008 1:37 PM
"Meet me at the book burning"
That's ridiculous, carl.
Gordon, it's no more ridiculous than the gnat-straining you did concerning Wallis' words. Their message last night was about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, life everlasting, and the walk we as Christians are committed to follow.
And you mince words. Look in the mirror, man.
Mark 3:1-6
1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. 2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. 3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. 4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. 6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 1:44 PM
I don't think it's ridiculous to object when Jesus is compared by implication to thugs, murders, and tyrants.
Uh -- you might want to consider the circumstances under which He died.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 17, 2008 1:46 PM
Well, Rick, that wasn't my point. Jesus wasn't at all like the people who crucified him, and I can't think of a preacher who ever made that connection, even by juxtaposition.
And RJohnson, I don't think it's inappropriate to hold Wallis and Co. responsible when they go over the top, however laudatory their efforts may be. Even the best sometimes make mistakes out of enthusiasm.
Posted by: Gordon | April 17, 2008 1:58 PM
Gordon: "And RJohnson, I don't think it's inappropriate to hold Wallis and Co. responsible when they go over the top, however laudatory their efforts may be. Even the best sometimes make mistakes out of enthusiasm."
Gordon, Moderatelad, and Donny (you say you are blocked from posting here, but I know you are reading this...drop me an e-mail response at RJohnson64 AT yahoo DOT com), I have a question for you.
I'm going to assume that there is at least one God-fearing church in your communities. I suspect that there are more than that, but let's go with just one for argument's sake.
If there is one God-fearing church in your town, why should any of the needy people in that community require government assistance? I mean, the Body of Christ, the hands of Jesus, are present in your community through your churches. God has opened up the storehouse of heaven to you, His children, and you only have to ask.
With that kind of bounty available to you and your church, there should be MORE than enough to share with the rest of the community. So much so that there is no reason for any federal, state or local government entity to spend any money whatsoever on housing, food, clothing, medical care, or infant care. All of that should be coming from the stores of that one church in your community that fears God...your church.
Why isn't it?
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 2:05 PM
Well, Rick, that wasn't my point.
That is the point. In His day Jesus was considered such a revolutionary and a dangerous subversive that He ended up dying as a criminal! So calling him more of a radical than Communists -- because of the breadth of his "revolution" -- is very, very appropriate. Napoleon supposedly said, "Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I [built empires] ... based on force. But ... Jesus built an empire based on love, and even to this day millions will die for Him."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 17, 2008 2:08 PM
I truly believe the motives of Rich Nathan, Jim Wallis, and others are very noble. I also agree that Jesus Christ was radical in his day. (Note: I DO agree with the concern about the comparison of Christ's radicalness to the communist thug/murderers radicalness. Comparing Christ's agenda, etc. to those ruthless men is apples to oranges and denigrating to the Son of God.) I do believe the church, not the government SHOULD be the ones reaching out to society. Saying all of that, here is my concern: the proverbial placing of the cart before the horse. The preaching of the pure, undefiled gospel of Christ must be prima facie. The social gospel movement of the 60's in some cases simply produced cared-for, hell-bound unregenerates. Oh, they were well cared for socially, physically, etc. But they were still two-fold children of hell. Rather than viewing me as some fundamentalist seminar blogger (I am not), let me instead call us to BOTH the propagation of the gospel and THEN the work propelling social justice. I am glad that the conference at Vineyard Columbus started with the call to embrace the gospel message. I would have been surprised had Rich Nathan done it any other way. I just fear that the exaltation of the Social Justice movement as prima facie could be very dangerous and could unintentionally relegate some precious souls to hell. May it never be! May the blessed Gospel of Christ sound forth first and foremost. THEN do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God!
Posted by: Danny Thomas | April 17, 2008 2:09 PM
RJohnson - There are plenty of God-fearing churches in my community (I happen to belong to one), and they do a lot of charitable work. I otherwise have some doubts about your premises.
Rick - I agree that Jesus was more radical than any revolutionary. I have doubts about the wisdom of juxtaposing him in a sermon with that particular group of revolutionaries.
Posted by: Gordon | April 17, 2008 2:16 PM
"They are too comfortable in their warm homes, secure jobs, expensive church buildings, and nice cars to care about those that lack any of these things. It's easier to obfuscate the message by taking potshots at words, mincing with minutae as it were."
C'mon RJ. You're doing it again...assuming you know anything about the people here who have issues, even minor issues, with some of the content from last night's event.
Posted by: Nathan | April 17, 2008 2:22 PM
Gordon: "RJohnson - There are plenty of God-fearing churches in my community (I happen to belong to one), and they do a lot of charitable work. I otherwise have some doubts about your premises."
Then are there still people in need in your community, Gordon? Is the government spending money on welfare, housing assistance, and medical assistance in your community?
If not, good for you, for you and your church (and the other churches in your town that share in that work) have eliminated the need for government social spending in your community. The church is in its rightful place, caring for and ministering to the community.
If this is not the case, then instead of wordsmithing other Christians maybe you should be working in your own church and community.
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 2:42 PM
Danny Thomas: "I do believe the church, not the government SHOULD be the ones reaching out to society."
Then what is keeping the church...YOUR church...from doing this?
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 2:44 PM
RJ - There you go again, trying to impute facts about me from your own fertile mind.
Of course there is still poverty in my community, and there always will be, regardless of the efforts of church or government. I am not a Utopian, as you seem to be.
The churches in my community could indeed do a lot more. I am currently involved in s struggle over whether the church my wife attends should build a huge building or make a greater effort to serve its community and the world. There are, as you suggest, complacent Christians who could and should do more. Shame on them. But that isn't me.
Posted by: Gordon | April 17, 2008 2:49 PM
RJohnson,
I agree that churches should be working to alleviate poverty. There is no doubt about it.
But you seem to imply that there will be NO people in need if the church does its job corrrectly. This contradicts Jesus, who said that the poor will always be with us (Matt 26:11, Mark 14:7). Jesus calls us to always help the poor, but he never said that poverty will cease to exist. He actually said the opposite. So as we help those in need, let's not delude ourselves into thinking that we will end all poverty.
Posted by: Nathan | April 17, 2008 2:50 PM
Pharisee and sermon critic Gordon: "Rick - I agree that Jesus was more radical than any revolutionary. I have doubts about the wisdom of juxtaposing him in a sermon with that particular group of revolutionaries."
Gordon, God juxtaposed Jesus against several criminals on the day he did. Are you going to criticize God for His sermon content? If this is the message that God placed on the heart of His servant that night, who the hell are you to judge? And if it isn't, then God will hold Rick accountable on the day of judgement and really doesn't need you sticking your nose into the matter, does He?
Judge yourself by the same standards you judge Pastor Rick, Gordon. Why are you picking at the mote in his eye when you should be asking if you have a log in your own?
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 2:51 PM
R Johnson: "Then what is keeping the church...YOUR church...from doing this?"
Great question, RJ! But let me ask you this: how do know my church ISN'T doing the social justice thing? Do you mind if Gordon, myself, and others anoint you and crown you as Presumer-in-chief? You alone are worthy of such a title!
Also, just curious...re you suffering from a blogger condition called postastigmatism?
All joking aside...my church DOES do the social justice thing. I am thrilled that my pastor is a proponent of racial reconcilliation and social justice activity. (And, no, his name is not Rich Nathan.)
I have had the privilege of getting into the trenches and working up close and personal in the social justice arena. Thankfully, I have never had to compromise the gospel or relegate it to secondo facie! For that I am grateful....again, thanks to my Pastor's example.
Posted by: Danny Thomas | April 17, 2008 2:58 PM
Nathan: "I agree that churches should be working to alleviate poverty. There is no doubt about it.
"But you seem to imply that there will be NO people in need if the church does its job corrrectly. This contradicts Jesus, who said that the poor will always be with us (Matt 26:11, Mark 14:7). Jesus calls us to always help the poor, but he never said that poverty will cease to exist. He actually said the opposite. So as we help those in need, let's not delude ourselves into thinking that we will end all poverty."
The Bible also teaches:
Acts 2:43-47
Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Until and unless the church is doing all it can to alleviate need among the people it is ministering to, Gordon, don't you consider it a sin to hide behind those verses in Mark and Matthew? If Jesus asks you on the day of judgment why you didn't exhort your church to do like the church in Acts, do you think he will accept those verses as an excuse? "Lord, you said the poor would always be with us, so I didn't think we needed to be that radical!"
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 2:59 PM
"Great question, RJ! But let me ask you this: how do know my church ISN'T doing the social justice thing? Do you mind if Gordon, myself, and others anoint you and crown you as Presumer-in-chief? You alone are worthy of such a title!"
Fine. In what town do you live? We can look up and see how much government money is being spent there for housing, food assistance and medical care and see how effective you and your church have been at taking God at His Word. We can let the statistics show if you are doing the "social justice thing" the way the Bible teaches.
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 3:05 PM
RJ - I would reject the label "Pharisee". Apparently it's your epithet for anyone you disagree with.
I actually said earlier that I think the "Justice Revival" is a good idea, and hope it succeeds. If I have trouble with the idea of painting Christ as a Marxist, that's a reasonable position. Not even Jim Wallis is perfect, and when he says something objectionable, there's nothing wrong with pointing it out.
Your suggestion that Christ's presence on the Cross with two thieves is similar to Wallis' juxtaposition of Jesus with communist thugs is a bit of a stretch. My understanding of the event is that the point of the story is that Jesus was not at all like the thieves on either side of him. In fact, one of them said so. Had Wallis said, "Jesus was more revolutionary than Marx or Che or Mao, thank God he's a revolutionary with no totalitarian baggage," I would be much happier.
Posted by: Gordon | April 17, 2008 3:07 PM
RJ,
Again, you have no idea what I do to help the poor, educate those stuck in failing schools, and protect the unborn. So stop assuming, it's really getting annoying.
"...hide behind those verses"....? Really? Those are the words of Jesus Christ. I don't hide behind his words, I follow his words. I fear that the words of Jesus aren't as important to you as your own thoughts and assumptions.
Posted by: Nathan | April 17, 2008 3:07 PM
Danny Thomas: "I have had the privilege of getting into the trenches and working up close and personal in the social justice arena. Thankfully, I have never had to compromise the gospel or relegate it to secondo facie! For that I am grateful....again, thanks to my Pastor's example."
Gordon, it's not the social justice arena. It is part and parcel of the church's job here on earth to care for the needy. Why do you compartmentalize social justice in this way? Is the fear that you might somehow disobey the Great Commission? I doubt it. I suspect that the real fear is that you love money more than the Lord. Otherwise you would not be so worried about the "social gospel" compromising things.
You do trust God will provide for you as you do His work, don't you?
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 3:11 PM
Gordon: "Had Wallis said, "Jesus was more revolutionary than Marx or Che or Mao, thank God he's a revolutionary with no totalitarian baggage," I would be much happier."
And we all know that Jim Wallis has been called by God to make you happy, Gordon.
Maybe you are uncomfortable because you realize that tonight Jim may start getting between you and your wallet a bit. You know, those billion or so folks in the world who live on a buck a day while you get three squares in a warm house. And those folks in Darfur who die while you drink soda made with gum arabic from Sudan.
Maybe you. moderatelad, Donald Thomas, and the rest who are wordsmithing are feeling a little conviction of the Holy Spirit. It wouldn't be the first time that conviction brought anger and backtalk, and it probably won't be the last.
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 3:17 PM
"Maybe you are uncomfortable because you realize that tonight Jim may start getting between you and your wallet a bit. "
What evidence do you have for this? Do you have any idea how much money I devote to "social justice"? Come to think of it, how can you be sure I'm not one of the downtrodden ones the church should be serving?
Please, this conversation would be so much more productive if you would respond to what I say than to some sort of internalized image you have of me.
As for wordsmithing - words have meanings, and meanings matter. Associating Christ with Marxism is in my view a bad mistake, and those who do it should be called on it.
Posted by: Gordon | April 17, 2008 3:24 PM
I'm shocked RJ has so much time to post today, considering how much time he must spend feeding the hungry, healing the sick, etc. And I'm really shocked that he has a computer. I mean, shouldn't the money he spent on his computer have gone to the poor? Hypocrite!
Get off your high horse, RJ.
I'm willing to bet that most people on this forum do their part to make the world a better place. So quit making unfounded charges about the people who disagree with you.
Posted by: Nathan | April 17, 2008 3:26 PM
Nathan: ""...hide behind those verses"....? Really? Those are the words of Jesus Christ. I don't hide behind his words, I follow his words. I fear that the words of Jesus aren't as important to you as your own thoughts and assumptions."
But I'm not the one wordsmithing a minister, Nathan. Since you and some others were being so bold as to critique what God laid on His heart, I figured you folks were perfect in your understanding of the Gospel, enough so that you felt obliged to correct a fellow Christian in his presentation of the sermon God gave him.
You quibble with Wallis saying that Jesus was more radical than some Communist leaders. You say that if they had chosen just a different phrasing it would have made you more happy.
Did you ever think that God really didn't want you to be happy listening to those words? Did you ever think that, just once in a while, a sermon might be used by God to make you uncomfortable, to offend you, to make you a bit angry?
Maybe that is what we need more of in the churches in this country. We need pastors who are willing to let the Holy Spirit us a little sandpaper and steel wool to scuff up the satisfied saints in this country.
Maybe that sermon illustration was exactly what God put on Jim's heart...just to tick you off, Nathan. Have you ever considered that?
Maybe God wanted to get YOUR attention.
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 3:27 PM
Nathan: "I'm willing to bet that most people on this forum do their part to make the world a better place. So quit making unfounded charges about the people who disagree with you."
Then maybe you should stop critiquing ministers unless you are willing to get out there and do more than they do.
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 3:30 PM
RJ and others...it's been fun. I am going to dismiss myself from the discussion. I am not one to go too far into BlogWars. RJ is a General in the BlogArmy. I am just a peon private. I bid you all adieu...peace in His name!
Posted by: Danny Thomas | April 17, 2008 3:33 PM
"As for wordsmithing - words have meanings, and meanings matter. Associating Christ with Marxism is in my view a bad mistake, and those who do it should be called on it."
God forbid that Wallis uses a bad sermon illustration to get out the message that the church needs to do more to help "the least of these" among us.
I would have been more pleased with your response had the first words from the critics been an inquiry about how they could get on board with the part of the "social justice thing" they say they agree with.
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 3:33 PM
"Do more than they do?" Is this a competition?
RJ, God has had my attention for my entire life. And I think it's perfectly fine to point out areas of disagreement with those who take the pulpit. Do you force yourself to agree with every word from every minister? I doubt it.
Posted by: Nathan | April 17, 2008 3:36 PM
That was exactly my point - it was a bad sermon illustration, and he should have thought better of it.
I'm already aboard with the "social justice thing." I have been all my life. I'm glad Wallis and company are trying to spur people to greater effort, but I am a bit perplexed that more don't see it as ordinary Christian behavior.
Posted by: Gordon | April 17, 2008 3:40 PM
While we're arguing about just how revolutionary Jesus was and is, let's remember that the most important thing to remember is that He, through His actions and teaching, pointed to Himself as divine and thus worthy of ultimate worship. By saying so, however, He opened Himself up to charges of blasphemy from the Jewish leaders of that day and sedition from the Roman government -- and He triumphed over them both.
Political leaders can demand allegiance only to their programs, and that lasts only a little while. The eternal Kingdom of Christ, on the other hand, demands all of us -- lock, stock and barrel -- and He will be satisfied with nothing less.
That said, as much as we may despise Communism, it behooves us to learn how the Communists operated so that we, by the Holy Spirit, can be similarly successful -- not by force or trickery but by the sheer tenacity of commitment we exhibit because, like the members of the early church who witnessed His resurrection, we understand His transforming power first-hand.
Anyway, if this "justice revival" takes off, and I hope to God that it does, watch out! On Easter Sunday afternoon I received what I believed to be a visitation from the LORD where He assured me that spiritual revival was imminent, and it would be a sign that He indeed was confirming was He had told me. Anyway, revival has nothing to do with non-believers "getting saved" -- that's only the fruit. What needs to happen is that Christians get tired of the "same old, same old" and recognize that He wants much more for and from us but that we're missing it because we've been chasing "other gods."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 17, 2008 3:41 PM
It's amazing, Rick - you and I agree on something.
Posted by: Gordon | April 17, 2008 3:49 PM
Nathan: "Do you force yourself to agree with every word from every minister?"
Nope. But I don't let a petty disagreement over word choice prevent me from seeing the message that the Holy Spirit is trying to bring through that minister. So he said Jesus was more radical than three Communist leaders.
So what? Why is that such a stumbling block for you? What is it about that sermon illustration that is keeping you from seeing the rest of the message that he gave? Are you going out of your way to find things to discredit him with just to keep yourself "happy"?
Sometimes, Nathan, God uses words in sermons that we do not like. Sometimes they are there to make us uncomfortable...very uncomfortable...for a reason.
I would encourage you to listen to what they preach tonight. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that what is said tonight will make you far more uncomfortable than anything they say last night. I'm willing to bet that what is preached tonight will make you feel real unhappy, perhaps even angry.
You see, I think God is calling out to the children He has blessed so bountifully here in this nation. I think He is getting in our face, big time, for being such poor stewards with the talents He has entrusted in our care. Our weekly paycheck, our taxes, our contribution to the church, our lottery winnings, our tax rebates, all of it is God's, pure and simple. Just like in the Parable of the Talents, we are going to be called on to account for how we have done the Master's work with what He left for us to use. And we have been left a lot...so very much...in comparison to so many in this world.
I may be wrong, Nathan, but I suspect you will not like most of tonight's message. It's going to be more of that "social gospel thing" that seems to set you off.
I'll pray for you.
Posted by: RJohnson | April 17, 2008 4:00 PM
I get Nathan's point. Putting Jesus in a mix of Karl Marx, Che Guevara, and Ho Chi Min has a huge downside. Jesus had better motives and a better plan -- and the comparison doesn't motivate me at all. I don't even get why it should.
I get Rick's point. Jesus was radical. Yancy's book, 'The Jesus I Never Knew' is a great read on that subject.
I don't really see being radical as Jesus' main message, or the point of this revival. Isn't the point to love God, love man and do right by all of the above?
Posted by: frankie | April 17, 2008 7:02 PM
ISN'T THAT RADICAL? LOVE GOD, LOVE MAN, WOMAN, CHILD, AND DO RIGHT?
Posted by: marilyn seven | April 17, 2008 7:48 PM
I think the conservative Christians get a bum rap. They fight to help the poor by advocating marriage and chastity (no fault divorce and bearing children outside of marriage are two of the leading causes of poverty); they fight for school choice to financially empower the poor with education, but are blocked by teacher unions and ACLU-types yelling about separation of church and state. Our nation's Christian heritage has led the United States to be the most generous nation the world has ever seen. Of course everyone and every nation can do better, but people, make sure you are not advocating some sort of "America-is-the-source-of-all-evil" point of view.
I must weigh in on the comment about Jesus being more radical than Marx, Mao and Ho. I think we all know what Jim Wallis was getting at, but he chose a poor example. It would be like saying, "Jesus is more revolutionary than Adolf Hitler or Hugh Hefner or Darwin or Freud." One can be "revolutionary" and bring great destruction. Wallis chose a poor example to illustrate his point.
Posted by: traditional believer | April 17, 2008 9:39 PM
Posted by: traditional believer | April 17, 2008 9:39 PM
The love of money is the root of all evil. America, if not ranked first in this category, is very close.
BTW- Separation of church and state was championed if not coined by the Baptists not the ACLU.
Baptist Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 17, 2008 10:12 PM
I don't really see being radical as Jesus' main message, or the point of this revival. Isn't the point to love God, love man and do right by all of the above?
What could be more radical than to do all those things, especially in contrast to the world's ways? It is what Paul calls "the more excellent way."
They fight to help the poor by advocating marriage and chastity (no fault divorce and bearing children outside of marriage are two of the leading causes of poverty); they fight for school choice to financially empower the poor with education, but are blocked by teacher unions and ACLU-types yelling about separation of church and state. Our nation's Christian heritage has led the United States to be the most generous nation the world has ever seen.
You should know that not all Christians support school vouchers. Some don't even want the poor in their schools in the first place; others believe that the money would be put to better use in the public schools. Part of the problem I see with "conservatives" is that they support only positions that serve primarily their own interests.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 17, 2008 10:16 PM
Perhaps I don't understand the idea of blogging. As it seems here, much talk and criticism. Will y'all accept an invitation to stop talking and start doing? Share some creative solutions of JUSTICE & REVIVAL in your church, community, friendship networks or self. Use this opportunity of conversation to share and receive some practical action steps. I thank God for all the things we are activly doing to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth as it is in Heaven. I pray for peace with justice for all children of God.
Posted by: Jeremy Michael | April 17, 2008 11:08 PM
"The love of money is the root of all evil. America, if not ranked first in this category, is very close."
On what evidence do you say this?
"You should know that not all Christians support school vouchers."
I doubt there is any major policy issue that enjoys the support of all Christians.
"Part of the problem I see with "conservatives" is that they support only positions that serve primarily their own interests."
But conservatives do support vouchers far more than liberals. How do you explain the disparity?
Posted by: kevin s. | April 17, 2008 11:33 PM
But conservatives do support vouchers far more than liberals. How do you explain the disparity?
Easily -- they already tend to put their kids in private schools and are more likely to abandon public schools, especially in major cities. As I said, they would benefit from vouchers more than the poor.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 17, 2008 11:49 PM
I don't find it radical. I find it same ole same ole Christianity. It's how we, and a great cloud of great people before us have always glorified God. It's the coolest thing ever. But a lot of non-Christians fear becoming Christian for having to do just that.
Everyone seeks their own interests and every political movement has its own agenda. They believe it, so they fight for it.
And yes, we are a very materialistic country that loves money and gourmet crap. High end stuff is now standard -- or so they all try to tell us. Christians are also big into money in the name of being good stewards. There's a balance in there that is good, but it's so easy to get distracted by it all.
Posted by: frankie | April 18, 2008 12:01 PM
What is the kingdom suppose to look like? Jesus didn't seem to have any problem with identifying His kingdom as being focused towards the poor. Think about the practical effect of Pentecost. You know that community thing and how the first Spirit filled christians "... sold their possession and gave to those who had need." And further on in the this fledgling new movement of the Spirit Paul ask the leadership for direction and they said to "not neglect the poor" among other things.
I think it is important to note how the early church fleshed out their understanding of what the kingdom of God is to look like. I don't kown why I keep hearing the words "The KIngdom of God is at hand."
Posted by: Mewing | April 18, 2008 11:44 PM
I wasn't there, but given what I have read so far I don't think that the speakers intended an either or argument about ending poverty.
If American Christians and all other people of faith want to do make good on their commitment to the teachings about poverty they will likely find that it is going to take every possible effort between both people of faith and their government. Not any one institution is going to pull it off on their own.
If it becomes an us verses them proposition we are in trouble. Most of us have our feet planted in both institutions either as members or citizens.
I don't mind seeing more Christian communities challenged to pull their end of the partnership. As people of faith we are challenged to lead by example. It just might inspire something.
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | April 19, 2008 6:32 AM
"The love of money is the root of all evil. America, if not ranked first in this category, is very close."
"On what evidence do you say this?" -Kevin S.
What sources would be acceptable to you?
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 20, 2008 3:34 PM
Forty years on, the question of whether or not Martin Luther King was a closet Marxist remains valid -- particularly when you examine the 1967 speech Beyond Vietnam: A Time To Break Silence. However, the bigger question must be -- was he simply a false prophet, cloaking antichrist humanism in the smokescreen of civil rights and social justice rhetoric?
See Jeremiah 23:25-32.
Posted by: wolfwatch | April 24, 2008 1:29 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?