More on Balance

A theme (some might say an obsession, given the content of my blogs!) of my faith is balance. My first student sermon in seminary compared John 3:1-18 with Matthew 25:31-46.

The former is the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus, and includes the phrase, “You must be born again.” It also includes the best-known verse in scripture—John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” 

The latter is Jesus’ Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, with the familiar injunctions to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisons, etc. The conclusion: “As you did it(or didn’t) to the least of my brothers, you did it (or didn’t) to me.”

One is about spiritual and eternal matters, while the other is about what has been called “The Social Gospel” or issues of social justice. The point of my sermon was that the same Bible contains both emphases. To date, I have not discovered a biblical prioritizing of the two emphases. So far as I can see, we are enjoined to a balance of ministries to people’s spiritual and eternal needs as well as to their physical and immediate needs.

When asked which was the most important commandment, Jesus responded, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. ³⁸This is the great and first commandment. ³⁹And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ⁴⁰On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40 NRSV).” 

The second is “like it.” “On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” I don’t find any way in that text to rationalize one to the exclusion—or even to the moderating—of the other, and I’ve preached that theme several times each year since then (1969); but I think I have a new way of articulating it.

I think the greatest weakness in the community of Christian discipleship is the problem of reductionism. Even in Jesus' day there was a tendency for people of faith to reduce discipleship to a simple formula ("Which is the greatest commandment?")

“All ya’ gotta’ do is…” and then recite the list. I sometimes have called it “formulaic” Christianity or Christianity by theorem—the lowest common denominator.

I observe two specific reductions.

The first is what Jim Wallis calls an atonement-only gospel: the only purpose for Christian discipleship is to lead people to salvation—to avoid hell and attain heaven. In my estimation it is impossible to deny the New Testament premium on that kind of life and witness, which is generally called “evangelism”.

The second reduction is an ethical absolutism: the primary measure of faith is our behavior toward others. Again, there is no denying that Jesus taught an ethical paradigm few humans have attained. Too few have tried; indeed, many rationalize away the injunctions to minister to the poor (or to tend in other ways to matters of the common good) by labeling them “secular humanist” or “socialist” or “communist”.

Few teachings strive for a balance between the two reductions.

In my last blog I described a debate between Jim Wallis and his close friend, Southern Baptist seminary president, Albert Mohler. The topic was, “Is social justice an essential part of the gospel and the mission of the church?”[1] 

Wallis argued yes, justice is integral to the gospel. Dr. Mohler said no, arguing that social justice was important but that “the gospel” was the atonement brought about in Christ that saves us from our sins and secures our souls for heaven. 

I admit up front that I have no hard data to support my observation and, moreover, that I am biased toward my own reductionist tendencies. Given those qualifications, however, it seems relatively clear to me that:

1.      Those who, with Dr. Mohler, say that social justice issues are important but secondary to evangelism tend to rationalize and thus to neglect and even to oppose efforts to minister to the poor. To be fair, in my limited observation almost all who oppose ministries of social justice are really opposing government involvement in those efforts. On the other hand, the truth of the matter is that if the government doesn’t do it, who will? There certainly are not enough resources in the churches, most of which are declining and struggling to survive; and no other entity has stepped up to the plate!

2.     Those who emphasize social justice ministries tend not only to neglect evangelistic ministries but even appear condescending or even contemptuous toward those who do. To be fair, in my limited observation such opposition is not to evangelism itself but to specific strategies of evangelism (I am in that category: indeed, I find many evangelism strategies outright counterproductive to the gospel!) On the other hand, I don’t recall seeing an effective evangelistic strategy emerge from that set. I do hear considerable rationalization about quality versus quantity.

Which brings us around to the issue of balance.

I watched the “Stupor Bowl” last night (you might guess I had no pony in that race). I’m not a fan of either team; but, it was less stressful to watch without caring who won. I don’t think I yelled at the TV even once!

It occurs to me that evangelism and social justice ministries might be like offense and defense on a football team. It takes both. If a team is weak at either, it is less effective.

The hoards leaving the church, and those who never got involved, speak volumes to the ineffectiveness of an unbalanced church.

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Wallis, Jim (2013-08-15). Who Jesus Is and Why It Matters (Ebook Shorts) (Kindle Locations 192-213). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Seven Biblical Principles of Unity--#3

The Foundation of Unity: Love

I Corinthians 13:4-7 (RSV) Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; ⁵it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; ⁶it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. ⁷Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. ⁸Love never ends.

These four verses often can be found inscribed in lovely calligraphy, framed and hung in homes and offices. “A hymn to love,” it’s called. But the beauty of the language may obscure the practical, compelling force of the words. The setting and context: a conflicted congregation caught up in a distorted spirituality, engaged in intense power struggles… all that may be lost in the admiration of the beautiful poetry.

The biblical preacher’s first task, then, is to anchor the text solidly in its context. Of course, the words are beautiful; but they are not written to rhapsodize love. They were written as a remedy for a church that was quarreling over whose spiritual gifts are more important (the gift of speaking in unknown tongues seems to have risen to the top of the pecking order). They’re boasting about how “spiritual” they are; and these words tell the Corinthian Christians that their fervent religiosity isn’t worth a plugged nickel apart from a new relationship with one another. Apart from love, “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”

The conflicts at Corinth emerge from a loveless spirituality. The remedy is not to further hone the gifts, but to practice—not to theorize or theologize or idealize, but to practice—“a still more excellent way” (12:31).

The spiritual gifts are not unimportant. They are essential to the full manifestation of the Body of Christ; but their end will come. Love, on the other hand, is the supreme quality of God’s reign and therefore “never ends.” As such it participates in and describes the unity that is that “Mystery of God’s Will” (the first biblical principle of unity). Rather than discount the exercise of spiritual gifts, love transforms their practice into a positive endeavor.

If the world’s population would live by this “still more excellent way”, there would be no problems. These four verses describe fifteen qualities of love:

1.      Love is patient, 

2.      and kind.

3.      Love is not jealous,

4.      or boastful;

^5.        it is not arrogant. 

6.      or rude. (NIV says, “It does not dishonor others,” MSG says, “…doesn’t force itself on others”)

7.      Love does not insist on its own way; (NLT says, “…does not demand its own way,” NIV says, “it is not self-seeking,” GNT says, “…it is not selfish,” MSG says, “…isn’t always ‘me first’”)

8.      it is not irritable “NIV says, “…easily angered,”) 

9.      or resentful; (NIV says, “…it keeps no record of wrongs.” MSG says, “…doesn’t keep score of the sins of others,” and the ERV says, “…does not remember wrongs done against it.”)

10.  does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.

11.  Love bears all things, (The variations are very interesting here! NIV says, “…always protects,” NLT says, “…never gives up,” MSG says, “…puts up with anything,” and ERV says, “never gives up on people,”)

12.  believes all things, (NIV says, “…always trusts, NLT says, “…never loses faith,” MSG notes, specifically, “…trusts God always,”)

13.  Hopes all things, (MSG says, “…always looks for the best,”)

14.  endures all things. (NIV says, “…always perseveres.” MSG says, “…never looks back, but keeps going to the end.”

15.  Love never ends.

Whew! Are you exhausted? How can one ever love in the way this passage describes? Had we read the remainder of the chapter we would find a clue in the contrast between the passing, incomplete present and the permanent and fulfilled future. The images are powerful: like the difference between the way a child thinks and the way an adult thinks; like the difference between a distorted view through a flawed pane of glass and a face-to-face meeting.

Things get complicated when we begin with ourselves. But, I remember reading or hearing somewhere that love is best received when you do something for another that is a blessing to him or her "as she or he sees it."

No man ever loved a woman more than Jo Lynn’s dad loved her mom. They met when he was 13 and got a paper route and started delivering papers to her house. From the first moment he saw her, he was a goner. Never was there a more beautiful love story.

He loved to surprise her with romantic gifts—and she loved it (especially when it was cash!) In their later years Joe wanted to take her on a train trip across the country, and he made all the arrangements. He envisioned them holding hands in the club car, watching the Great Plains slide by. He envisioned sunset dinners in the dining car, with the Rocky Mountains majestically saluting as they rode by.

But there was a lump in the gravy. She didn’t like trains. She told him so. She didn’t want to take that trip; but, he wanted it so bad; and he was just sure that once she got aboard and the trip was underway, she’d love it.

The only harsh word I ever heard from either of the about the other, was her resentment about being pressured to go on that train trip. Truly loving someone means that he or she gets to decide what is the "loving way" in which to be treated.

Which is just another way of saying, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matthew 7:12 KJV).

And that’s the way I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim