Is Charles Finney the Prototype for Evangelicalism?

With the recent publication of the second edition of a book from the 1970’s, Douglas M. Strong has repackaged Donald Dayton’s theory that evangelicalism is defined by faith experience and right living, rather than by doctrinal fidelity. 

 Dayton’s book uses Charles G. Finney and those closely tied to him as the exemplars of this trend. While it cannot be denied that Finney preached the gospel (or at least a form of it) widely and pointed many to Christ, there is significant doubt that Finney’s belief system is a viable foundation for a sustainable Christian faith, much less being at the heart of historic evangelicalism.

Charles G. Finney

 Finney’s intellectual hubris was his theological undoing. As a trained lawyer, and by all accounts a very intelligent man, Finney assumed that he could, without cultural influence, rightly interpret Scripture. Based on a likely limited library at his teacher’s house, Finney rejected all historical Christian teachings because he did not like the way they were argued. Instead, he committed himself to a “no creed but the Bible” approach, without the aid of theological conversation with contemporary or historical peers. This unfortunate confidence was enabled by Finney’s quick wits and premature promotion to public ministry. In truth, Finney’s belief that he could rightly interpret Scripture without any external influence affecting the outcome rests very close to what is known as the “fundamentalist fallacy.”

Misunderstanding the Atonement

 In his autobiography, Finney records his opportunity to debate with a Universalist while he was still in his ministerial training. His teacher was ill and Finney stood in, ostensibly to defend orthodoxy. Finney writes,

“I delivered two lectures upon the atonement. In these I think I fully succeeded in showing that the atonement did not consist in the literal payment of the debt of sinners, in the sense in which the Universalist maintained; that it simply rendered the salvation of all men possible, and did not of itself lay God under the obligation to save anybody; that it was not true that Christ suffered just what those for whom he died deserved to suffer; that no such thing as that was taught in the Bible, and no such thing was true; that, on the contrary, Christ died simply to remove an insurmountable obstacle out of the way of God’s forgiving sinners, so as to render it possible for him to proclaim a universal amnesty, inviting all men to repent, to believe in Christ, and to accept salvation that instead of having satisfied retributive justice, and borne just what sinners deserve, Christ had only satisfied public justice, by honoring the law, both in his obedience and death, thus rendering it safe for God to pardon sin, to pardon the sins of any man and of all men who would repent and believe in him. I maintained that Christ, in his atonement, merely did that which was necessary as a condition of the forgiveness of sin; and not that which cancelled sin, in the sense of literally paying for the indebtedness of sinners. (Charles G. Finney, Charles G. Finney: An Autobiography [Westwood, N. J.: Barbour Books], 38)”

Finney rejected the notion of election, divine calling, and substitutionary atonement in Christ’s death on the cross.

In truth, Christ’s death on the cross as a human in human form was only necessary because it is substitutionary. If all Christ did was make possible salvation in a general way, it could have as simply been done by fiat as by self-sacrifice. Without extending this post with further discussion on the atonement, it is clear that Christ came as a redeemer not as an enabler. Even taking a thematic view of Scripture, rather than pursuing a verse by verse defense, it does not seem that Finney’s perspective on the atonement is helpful. In short, even without accepting a fully Calvinistic theological paradigm, Finney’s reasoning seems better suited to win an argument against Universalism than to be considered biblically faithful.

An Unsound Foundation for Evangelicalism

 In all this, I am not making the claim that Finney was not converted, nor that he did not have a profound impact on many people. Finney preached a form of the gospel that enabled many to come to faith in Christ through repentance of sin. He was also instrumental, as Dayton and Strong rightly argue, in ending the evils of American slavery.  All of these things could have been, and were otherwise, done while still maintaining doctrinal integrity.

 By basing their image of historic evangelicalism on individuals on the fringe of orthodoxy, more subject to their culture than to Scripture, Dayton and Strong have undermined their own case.

 In fact, most of the organizations and theological movements cited in this volume have tended to cut their mooring to Christian orthodoxy in the years since Finney’s influence. Wheaton University has maintained fidelity to its evangelical doctrine. On the other hand, the Salvation Army is no longer concerned with salvation in any meaningful sense. Oberlin College, where Finney was president, is no longer distinctly Christian.

The track record of Finney’s theology demonstrates a failure to thrive in the long term. In the first generation, the theological content is assumed, in the second it is unknown, and by the third it is rejected.

This should point present day evangelicals toward the need to be active in pursuing social justice while adamant about maintaining the doctrinal orthodoxy of our Christian heritage.

Rediscovering an Evangelical Heritage: A Tradition and Trajectory of Integrating Piety and Justice

$16.00

By Donald W. Dayton, Douglas M. Strong

Buy on Amazon

On Student Questions

Don’t be that student at seminary (or any other institution of higher learning).

Yes, I’m talking about that one.

Every class has that student who wants to teach the professor and the whole class something.

It goes like this: The student read this book. Or, maybe he’s read several books on a topic. Or, perhaps her pastor taught a series of sermons on a particular topic with a particular slant.

None of these qualifies this individual as an expert. Remember this, lest you become “that student.” The reason students are students is because they do not have the knowledge or expertise that the professor has.

This seems like a simple idea that would be clear to everyone, but educators themselves have allowed "that student" to continue to exist, in part, because they are too soft on ignorance.

Are there bad questions?

There is an adage among educators that “the only bad question is the question you don’t ask.”

This isn’t entirely true. First, there was the time when a student raised his hand to ask where we could get the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I realize this was the first day of class, but that was an insanely stupid question. The professor did a remarkable job in responding graciously. Nevertheless the question was both asked and bad.

The second kind of bad question is the non-interrogative question. This can take two different forms. Sometimes these “questions” can be phrased as comments that are long and rambling, after which the speaker adds, “What do you think?” That is, if they bother to make it a true question at all. These are usually designed more to demonstrate the questioners brilliance or to teach the audience something.

Another form often taken by the non-interrogative question is the “bear trap question.” These are used when a student has a nugget of information––usually trivia––that they want to surprise everyone (particularly the professor) with. These questions are usually tossed out in ways that, whether intended or not, break up the flow of the lecture or discussion. More often than not, they end up making “that student” look foolish to everyone else, though wise in her own eyes. Fortunately for “that student” Scripture is silent on this topic. Or not.

The reality that seems to escape the understanding of “that student” and his inbred cousins is that no one in the room is paying to hear him speak. 

No One Paid for Student Commentary

Everyone that has paid tuition to sit in a class is expecting to gain insight information from a highly qualified professional, usually a Doctor, who has invested countless hours reading, researching, discussing, teaching, are writing about the topic under consideration.

This means that the fact that “that student” has read a recent book is extremely unlikely to shatter the foundations of the professor’s worldview.

In reality, since I’ve been hanging around the academic community for a while, I’ve realized that most new books just rehash old books. Therefore, in the unlikely event that I’ve actually read some new book my professor has not read, he or she has likely encountered the thesis of that book in a dozen books previously.

View fullsize

The democratization of education has led to the feeling that everyone has an opinion that counts. Wikipedia, blogs (like this one!), and growing ease of self-publishing (particularly e-publishing) lend credibility to quackery and foolishness. They also increase the popular misconception that one can make a contribution to any field of interest nearly instantaneously merely once one has done a little research.

If you think this, you are wrong. Feel free to do your research, but please hold all comments and pseudo-questions until the end. This is part of stewardship of the education of you and those in the class with you.

Far from being a mere rant by a student about his peers. I am actually hopeful that this discussion might change lives. Perhaps even yours, dear reader. With that in mind, I’ve included this helpful flowchart for when and how to ask questions. This did not originate with me, but it is so important that it bears sharing across the world and among all generations.

The moral of the story is not, “Don’t talk in class.” Instead, we should demonstrate neighbor love through our class participation. Only ask questions that will contribute to everyone’s understanding. And NEVER ask questions to show how smart you are. Most likely if you do, you’ll only end up looking dumber anyway.

---

Link photo courtesy of Sean Dreilinger. Used under a creative commons license in an unmodified state. The source of the photo is: http://ow.ly/HzUro 

Dress Colors, Social Media, and Questionable Research

Last week on Thursday, there were two hot topics on Social Media that kept many people amused (and somewhat less than maximally productive) for quite some time. The first was a debate on the color of a dress. 

Someone posted a picture on tumblr in mid-February and asked for help determining what color it is. (Here is the link, note there is some questionable language in the post.) 

Given a few weeks and a snow storm in the Southeast of the US, which gave a number of people downtime to try to discover the end of the internet, and presto!, we have a viral debate raging on social media about absolutely nothing. It's sort of like an episode of Seinfeld, only it lasted more than 22 minutes and really isn't nearly as funny.

For nerds (and I include myself in this descriptor), the science behind the confusion is pretty interesting. In fact, I found the post at Wired that explained the nature of the confusion to be enthralling. There is a scientific explanation for the perception of different colors depending on the setting.

The Social Phenomenon

More significant to my mind, though, is the way that such a benign and pointless social phenomenon has been reported in the media. Not only did it inspire Wired to write a post to cash in on the web traffic, but all of the major news network jumped on the story.

To put this in plain English, with everything going on in the world, a story about a social media debate got picked up by the news.

This reveals some of the significance of social media. It isn't just a fad that will be gone like slap-wrap bracelets (which are still around, just not as popular as when I was a kid). Social media is driving the way society thinks.

Is this the way it should be? I don't think so, but that's not the point. This particular cultural event reinforces the reality that we cannot simply ignore the phenomenon of social media or demonize it. We have to figure out how to meaningfully engage this tool without allowing it to cheapen our own way of thinking. To that end, Karen Swallow Prior has written a helpful blog at Christianity Today that details some of the potential lessons to be learned from #TheDress.

I have written previously on some of the dangers of social media, based on their potential to damage personal relationships. I have also written about reasons why Christians should (and should not) blog, which is pertinent because social media is the platform that conveys the bloggers message to a broad audience.

The answers are not immediately obvious, but a debate over dress colors and coverage of escaping llamas drew national attention and broad social media engagement. The church needs to figure out how to use this tool and how it fits into a Christian worldview.

The Research Phenomenon

A second significant issue is the way that informal reporting and researching techniques are being used to promulgate internet news. One example of this is, ironically, this post, which relies on internet searches and cultural artifacts to present a case. Recognizing this irony, and not claiming to be an actual news source, I press on with my opinion.

In a 1995 book, Telling the Truth, Lynne Cheney notes,

“From 1968 to 1988, the average sound bite for a presidential candidate on the network evening news had plummeted from 42.3 seconds to 9.8 seconds. In the 1992 campaign the length of time would become shorter still: 8.4 seconds. Meanwhile, the portion of the news taken up by correspondents’ comments rose to 71 percent, with candidates sharing the remainder of the time with voters and political experts. A study of the New York Times showed a similar trend. From 1960 to 1992, the average continuous quote or phrase from a candidate in a front page story fell from fourteen lines to six lines. In both television and print, reporters increasingly had power to turn the candidates’ words and deeds into illustrative material for the stories they wanted to tell.”

Twenty years after Cheney wrote this, the problem has not gone away. Indeed, if anything, social media platforms like Twitter have caused people, politicians included, to self-limit to 140 characters and thus strip their own comments of context. We have made it easier for someone to reframe our comments according to their own liking.

But a second significant theme is the prevalence of telling stories. In many cases the point is no longer to reveal truth, but to tell a compelling stories. This allows bloggers and media personnel to look for rapid sources of some credibility that will carry their message in a way that will get clicks and support their narrative.

Often this results in a tight circle self-reference with dubious credibility. This Tweet, captured on the day after the dress color debate went viral illustrates the research phenomenon:

#media pic.twitter.com/3juSOx4RAw

— Jake Beckman (@jakebeckman) February 27, 2015

Does this mean that the analysis is not correct? No. It may be correct. In fact, it may be so inconsequential that it doesn't matter if it is correct. After all, do we really care what color the dress is?

However, this is merely an illustration of what I believe to be a broader phenomenon that includes more significant topics. Experts are citing experts citing experts. Who knows that the chain of proof doesn't lead back to my blog, or another similar platform that also lacks credibility on a particular subject? 

We must seek truth. This means that we need to be skeptical of some of what gets conveyed as news. Just because we read it on the internet, even from a widely published source, does not mean it is credible or true. This also means we need to avoid crucifying people because of the way someone presents someone else's opinion on a blog or social media. Learning to do these things well is a critical task for Christians in the 21st century.

A Poem by Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss)

"A Short Condensed Poem in Praise of Reader's Digest Condensed Books"

By Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss)

It has often been said
There's so much to be read,
you never can cram
all those words in your head.

So the writer who breeds
more words than he needs
is making a chore
for the reader who reads.

That's why my belief is
the briefer the brief is,
the greater the sigh
of the reader's relief is.

And that's why your books
have such power and strength.
You publish with shorth!
(Shorth is better than length.)

Today is the 111th anniversary of the birthday of Dr. Seuss. Across the US, many elementary schools will be celebrating the literary oeuvre of a man who wrote mainly nonsense. Though his storylines often lacked obvious purpose, he created characters that have engaged his readers for decades and led to a colorful silliness being passed on through several generations.

What American child has not read (or heard read) Green Eggs and Ham or would not recognize even the jaunty red and white striped hat of the cat in the hat? Or One Fish, Two Fish? A significant percentage of high school graduations, at least in the season when I went to a number of them, seemed to reference Oh, the Places You'll Go! Additionally, many of the scholarly tomes that I read, which otherwise lack any sort of a sense of humor, cite The Lorax as a viable inspiration for environmental ethics.

In any case, I offer this poem, which was printed on the dust jacket of Reader's Digest Condensed Books, for your entertainment in honor of Geisel's birthday.

A Brief History of Mercy Ministry in the Church - Part Three

This is part Three of Three posts in a series on the history of Mercy Ministry in the Christian Church. Part One is accessible here.  Part Two can be found here.

After introducing the topic and giving a brief overview of Mercy Ministry in the Early Church, Patristic Era, Medieval Era and Reformation Era, today's post emphasizes the Modern era, bringing the discussion up to the present time. 

---

Photo by Amir Farshad Ebrahimi. Used under creative commons license. http://ow.ly/IHxpd 

As a reaction to the religious wars of the Reformation Era, Deism began to rise and people began to try to demonstrate that non-Christians could be ethical, too. Divisions began to form between Church and State, with none starker than the division in France due to the French Revolution. When the church and state split, the larger political organization rose as a more significant participant in what had previously been the church’s role in dealing with physical needs.

 The roots of modern evangelicalism are in British non-conformist religion. The four central aspects of early evangelicalism were conversionism, crucicentrism, biblicism and activism.[1] The key for today’s discussion is activism, which refers to the belief that the internal change brought about by gospel conversion would be worked out in external application of the gospel to life. It was this tendency toward activism that led William Carey to build businesses to improve the local economy in India, end injustices like the burning of widows, and start schools instead of only preaching the gospel. This also drove people like William Wilberforce and John Newton to fight for the abolition of slavery.

 It about the same time as the rise of evangelicalism that the higher critical approach to Scripture was developed. Faith became subjective, the integrity of the Bible was frequently questioned by Friedrich Schleiermacher, Julius Wellhausen, and others. Deism became increasingly accepted through the work of individuals like Thomas Paine. In summary, people began to doubt the central truths of Christianity, but retained their desire for the works of the Christian religion. As a result, mercy ministry began to take precedence over doctrine. Later, liberal theologians such as Walter Rauschenbusch began to promote the idea that the Kingdom of God was a condition of earthly justice that had no true doctrinal content.

 Unfortunately, the morals of the church cannot stand without a doctrinal foundation. Individuals like J. Gresham Machen, B. B. Warfield, and Charles Hodge resisted the discrediting of Scripture. Others reacted more strongly against the doctrinal decay of the theological liberals by rejecting the social aspect of ministry. This led to the rise of fundamentalism, particularly in the United States, which promoted doctrinal truth and evangelism without significant concerns for mercy ministry. This overreaction was a divergence from the central traditions of Christianity and the resurgence of an interest in mercy ministry among doctrinally conservative Christians should be seen as a course correction not an innovation.

Carl F. H. Henry

 Carl F. H. Henry’s brief but significant book, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, speaks about the loss of social ministry among theologically fundamental Christians: “The social reform movements dedicated to the elimination of such evils do not have the active, let alone vigorous, cooperation of large segments of evangelical Christianity.”[2] That reality began to change in the mid Twentieth Century as some theologians began to shift the language from doing missions (which focus only or mainly on saving souls) to mission (which focuses on participating in God’s redemptive work in all creation).

Recently there has been an explosion in conferences, sermons, and books on the topic of Mercy Ministry. Evangelicalism has largely recovered its vision for working out the implications of the gospel in the world. Our task on our External Journey, with this cloud of witness in history behind us, is proclaim the gospel while we are serving them. Or, to enable them to hear our proclamation because we have met their physical needs.

“ [S]ome can’t hear our proclamation [of the Gospel] until they’ve been delivered physically from injustice and other forms of suffering. Until we pick them up from the road, they won’t hear of the good news. Today, millions are being drugged, sold, and raped multiple times a day in sex trafficking. Do you think they will hear your proclamation? I don’t.[3]”

[1] David Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (New York: Routledge, 1989), 5.

[2] Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1947), 3.

[3] Tony Merida, Ordinary: How to Turn the World Upside Down (Nashville, Tenn.: B & H, 2015), 29.

Jabberwocky

by Lewis Carroll

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
   Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogroves,
   and the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
   The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
   The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
    Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
   And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
   The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
   And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
   The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
   He went galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
   Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh, Callay!"
   He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
   Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogroves,
   And the mome raths outgrabe.

A Brief History of Mercy Ministry in the Church - Part Two

This is part Two of Three posts in a series on the history of Mercy Ministry in the Christian Church. Part One is accessible here.

After introducing the topic and giving a brief overview of Mercy Ministry in the Early Church,  today's post emphasizes the Patristic Era, Medieval Era and Reformation Era.

---

Patristics

Photo by .craig. Used by Creative Commons License.  http://ow.ly/IHw3G 

During the Patristic Era, Christianity was the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. This period ended when the Roman Empire fell. The church rapidly went from political underdog to a political favorite. The new found favor led to a convergence between worldly politics and church offices. The bishop in Rome began to have more and more power, eventually gaining more significance in the eyes of the people than the emperor. Notably, it was Pope Leo I who negotiated a treaty with the Attila the Hun, not the Roman Emperor. By the time the Roman Empire collapsed due to repeated invasions in 590 A.D., the Church was a greater uniting force than the vestiges of the Roman government.

 The Emperor Julian, often called “The Apostate,” made an active attempt to remove Christianity from the Roman Empire in the middle of the 4th century. In his diatribe against Christians he wrote, “The impious Galileans not only feed their own poor but ours as well, welcoming them into their agape; they attract them, as children are attracted, with cakes.” Obviously there is some sarcasm here, but the point should be well taken that Christians had a significant impact in their society because they did mercy ministries.

 Ambrose of Milan wrote, “It is justice that renders to each one what is his, and claims not another’s property; it disregards its own profit in order to preserve the common equity.” (Ambrose, On the Duty of the Clergy, i.) So here, the merciful action of Christians is looking after the interests of others even at their own expense.

 For Augustine, the Bishop of the North African city of Hippo, seeking the common good was a demonstration of Christ’s command to demonstrate neighbor love:

“Now you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself. What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection. . . . From this precept proceed the duties of human society, in which it is hard to keep from error. But the first thing to aim at is, that we should be benevolent, that is, that we should cherish no malice and no evil design against another. For man is the nearest neighbor of man. (Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church)”

In the same work, he urges his readers to care for the physical needs of their neighbors. Drawing an all-encompassing circle around the needs of the human body.

“Man, then, as viewed by his fellowman, is a rational soul with a mortal and earthly body in its service. Therefore, he who loves his neighbor does good partly to the man’s body, and partly to his soul. What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline. (Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church)”

What we can see in this period of church history is that there was a theological impetus toward mercy ministry. Augustine, who remains a central figure in the development of Christian doctrine, balanced the need for evangelism with the need for meeting the physical needs of the people around. Far from a novel invention of the millennial evangelicals, mercy ministry has been a core Christian practice.

Medieval

The Medieval period runs from the fall of Rome to the beginning of the Protestant reformation. This is a period of time that sees the Papacy as largely the most significant political force in the known world. The Popes are the kingmakers, since according to the theological understanding of the day, the Pope held the keys to the kingdom of heaven while the kings only controlled daily life.

 Monasticism was a leading movement in implementing mercy ministry in the middle ages. Among the Sayings of the Fathers that record the words of many of the early monks, and which were influential in later monasticism, we have such statements as these:

“From our neighbor are life and death. If we do good to our neighbor, we do good to God: if we cause our neighbor to stumble, we sin against Christ. (From The Sayings of the Fathers, cited in George W. Forell, Christian Social Teachings (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 85.)

A brother asked an old man: “There are two monks: one stays quietly in his cell, fasting for six days at a time, and laying many austerities upon himself: and the other ministers to the sick. Which of them is more acceptable to God?” The old man answered: “If the brother, who fasts six days, even hung himself up by his nostrils, he could never be the equal of him who ministers to the sick. (Ibid.)”

Thomas Aquinas built on Scripture, church tradition and Aristotelian philosophy to argue: “Justice is a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by constant and perpetual will.” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II/2.58.1.) So internal holiness is not the only goal, because “justice is an external operation, in so far as either it or the thing we use by it is made proportionate to some other person to whom we are related by justice. . . . Therefore the proper act of justice is nothing else than to render to each one his own.” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II/2.58.11.) Thomas was operating under a view of nature that held to common natural rights to the earth, and so God’s plan was for the earth to meet all the needs of the inhabitants of earth.

 In addition to these sources, there are many other evidences of active work in ministry done by the church on behalf of the poor. Taking care of the poor was a central pillar in the doctrine of the church. At times it became questionable whether it was consistently central to the practice of the church. However, there is clear evidence that during this period, mercy ministry was viewed as essential to being Christian.

Reformation

For the purposes of this discussion, the Reformation Era runs from 1517 when Luther posted his 95 theses on the doors of the Wittenberg Cathedral to about the end of the 30 Years war. During this time, theological strife was rampant and mixed with political issues as princes and kings were encouraged to engage in wars under religious guise but often for political reasons. This was also a period which saw the rise of the nation-state and a market economy.

 The theological thrust of the Reformation was the recovery of the gospel. In the view of Luther, the gospel had been so misrepresented by the Roman Catholic Church that radical reformation of the church practices and doctrines were required. In that time, though, everyone was “Christian” in the sense that all Europeans were brought into the church through infant baptism. Thus there were few questions about doing good to Christians vs. non-Christians. At the same time, Luther’s 95 Theses were largely driven by a desire to restore just dealings in Europe. Two of the injustices wrapped up in the sale of indulgences were the redirection of economic resources to Rome for improper purposes and the offer of forgiveness without repentance. Theses 43–46 read:

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means squander it on pardons.

 Calvin, too, held mercy ministry as a central role of the Christian. These comments come from his treatise on the Ten Commandments, explaining the application of the Eighth Commandment: 

“The purport is, that injustice being an abomination to God, we must render to every man his due. . . . For we must consider, that what each individual possesses has not fallen to him by chance, but by the distribution of the sovereign Lord of all, that no one can pervert his means to bad purposes without committing a fraud on a divine dispensation. ”

Calvin was urging the righteous use of money, which is a form of mercy ministry. In his Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 8, Calvin explains that doing good to neighbors is an essential part of true piety: 

“Because a man does not easily maintain love in all respects unless he earnestly hears God, here is proof also of his piety. Besides, since the Lord well knows, and also attests through his prophets, that no benefit can come from us to him, he does not confine our duties to himself, but he exercises us “in good works toward our neighbor.” The apostle consequently has good reason to place the whole perfection of the saints in love. Elsewhere he quite rightly calls it the “fulfillment of the law,” adding that “he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.””

 More could be said about the function of the external works of righteousness in the life of the Christian, but from these evidences it is clear that the Reformers held mercy ministry as a central function of Christians.

A Brief History of Mercy Ministry in the Church - Part One

Original photo by Alex Proimos, The Hand. Used by Creative Commons License. http://ow.ly/IHuJH

Over the past few decades, conservative Christians have had to “rediscover” the biblical doctrine of mercy ministry because many had retreated from the application of the gospel to society.

Aside from the clear theological error, one reason for this abandonment was a reaction to the strong push by many theologically liberal Protestants to do practical social ministry without proclaiming the gospel. Those who advocated social ministry over the gospel felt that meeting physical needs was the primary function of Christianity and teaching doctrinal truth was a divisive non-essential. 

The somewhat predictable overreaction led many doctrinally conservative Christians to overemphasize theological truth to the exclusion of practical ministries. Additionally, in the 19th and 20th centuries a particular view of the end times became very popular, teaching that the world would be annihilated and an entirely new kind of creation would be made by God. This form of eschatology tended to deemphasize the importance of good works done in this life that were not of an explicitly “spiritual” nature.

 In the middle of the 20th century, there was a rise in a stream of theology called Missional Theology, which tends to focus on a broader view of God’s working in the world. This movement has influenced evangelicals, even those outside of the Missional movement, to return to the earlier Christian patterns that emphasized both proclamation of the gospel and meeting people’s physical needs.

 In a series of three posts on the history of mercy ministry in the Christian tradition, I will attempt to show in very broad terms, that social activism is deeply rooted in the history of the Church. This is something that should characterize the way the church lives in addition to doctrinal orthodoxy.

 In order to gallop through this expansive history in a short time, I have divided Church History into five basic periods. We will look at the role of the church in doing mercy ministry during the Early Church, the Patristic era, then the Medieval era, the Reformation era, and finally the Modern era.  

Early Church

 The Early Church is generally defined as the period from the death of the Apostles to the acceptance of Christianity as a legal religion in the Roman Empire in the first decades of the 4th century. This is a period that was characterized by periodic and regional persecutions of Christians by the pagan Roman Empire. The Christian Church was often marginalized, but more socially than physically in most cases. During this time Christian theologians were fighting to establish legitimacy of the Church and to obtain permission to continue to exist as a Church “above ground.”

 Waldo Beach and H. Richard Niebuhr note that the early church was most known for the assistance provided to fellow Christians. They write, “The most striking quality of the Christians was their agape in the care of their own group, as seen in their assistance to the bereft, to orphans and old people, in the care for prisoners and the sick and those condemned to the mines, and in their hospitality and the sharing of economic goods.”[1] This is likely largely because it was illegal to be Christian and because the church was too small in the early days to be a significant social force.

 However, in the earliest Christian writing after the New Testament, the pursuit of justice on a broader scale is evident. The Epistle of Barnabas, the author (not Barnabas) speaks against the prevailing Roman practice of exposing children: “That we may avoid all injustice and impiety, we have been taught that to expose the newly born is the work of wicked men––first of all because we observe that almost all [foundlings], boys as well as girls, are brought up for prostitution.”

 The author of the Didache writes, “Give to everyone that asks, without looking for any repayment, for it is the Father’s pleasure that we should share His gracious bounty with all men.” This points toward mercy being shown to those around and not merely the Christian community.

 This attitude is described by Tertullian, “One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives.” This he included in his Apology for Christians. However, Tertullian makes it clear that their acts of mercy were not focused solely on Christians:  

“We have no respect of persons in doing good, because by so doing we do good to ourselves, who catch at no applause or reward from men, but from God only, who keeps a faithful register of our good works, and has ample rewards in store for this universal charity; for we have the same good wishes for emperors as for our nearest friends.”[2]

 Based on the historic evidence, neighbor love was a central aspect in the lives of the Early Church. Largely based on their position as (generally) lower class individuals outside of the usual power structures, it seems that often a great deal of effort was directed within their faith community before pursuing mercy ministry on a public scale.

[1] Waldo Beach and H. Richard Niebuhr, Christian Ethics: Sources of the Living Tradition, 2nd ed. (New York: Knopf, 1973), 53

[2] Tertullian, Apology, chapter XXXVI.

Why Should People Blog?

I own several hundred books that I haven’t read, most of which I hope to read or reference at some point. New books are coming out at an amazing rate. I've found that I certainly can't keep up in my sub-discipline of Christian environmental ethics. Forget about actually reading the new books from the various Christian publishing houses that people around me and in my church are reading.

Even more than the available published books, the internet is awash in a sea of information. We are inundated with data, facts, descriptions, accounts, pictures, videos, opinions, artifacts, and various entertainments. 

If your Facebook feeds and Twitter streams are anything like mine, you probably have the same overwhelmed feeling that I get when I think of all that there is to think about and read and process. There is no way I can keep up with the torrent of information that is sent my way on the internet, forget about the thousands of volumes in the local library that I haven’t read.

With this overflow of information, why do people–myself included–feel it necessary to chime in by creating more online content? 

There are at least three reasons why bloggers write:

First, there is a theological reason for this. Humans are made in the image of God. It’s been that way since God created Adam and Eve. Part of the way we reflect the image of God is by creating. God is a creator, we are sub-creators that imitate his work. One way that some of us reflect God’s creative activity is by thinking and writing. Blogs are simple ways of doing that, though the writers may not be conscious of this motivation.

Second, practically speaking, writing for blogs is the easiest way to get published. Even if you are a good thinker and writer, there is no guarantee that a completed book will get published. However, for under $100 and a few hours of work, you can have a customized web address, some pretty pictures, and your own content displayed for hundreds–more likely dozens–to view. The desire to publish can have either positive or negative motivations.

Third, blogging provides a way to communicate to a broader audience. Ideally this is what blogging is good for. Blogging should be less focused on ranting, reacting, and misrepresenting than on communicating valuable perspectives on things that the writer is intimately familiar with or has at least carefully researched.

How does blogging advance the kingdom?

As a Christian, the most significant motivation for me should be to advance the Kingdom of God. This is done by verbally proclaiming the gospel as well as by working to bring the redemptive power of the gospel to bear on the world around us. 

Blogging can help with both aspects of this.

In fact, Karen Swallow Prior makes the point that blogging is just the latest technological iteration of an older impetus. In her recent book, Fierce Convictions, Prior notes that the pamphlets that were used to good effect in the 18th and 19th centuries to make theological and social arguments broadly and inexpensively are the precursor to blogs. These pamphlets were cheap to print, could be mass produced, and broadcast widely. This sounds a lot like blogs to me.

Pamphlets helped to change the world, even though their messages were often brief and transient. Blogs can do the same, hopefully for the better.

Tony Merida notes the possibility of Kingdom service through blogging in his recent book Ordinary. When offering practical suggestions for speaking up and helping end injustice, Merida writes, “Consider writing a blog to your readers or encouraging someone else who blogs to highlight a particular issue of injustice.”

Merida recognizes the power of our modern means of communications. He also recognizes the danger of it. 

He writes, “Be aware of the fact that it is easy, as well as dangerous, to speak with a false sense of authority, make sweeping generalizations, or perhaps even disclose information that can re-victimize or increase vulnerabilities for the very ones you seek to speak up for.” 

There is raw power in blogging that must be managed carefully.

Being truthful should be the primary goal of every communicator. Communication that is misleading, intentionally or accidentally, does not advance the Kingdom. As a private citizen, I have a responsibility to present the facts as well as I can and be subject to correction when I fail at that.

Grace should pervade every post. The internet is a wilderness and there is great potential for doing good or evil by communicating on the web. If I slander someone or viciously attack every move someone makes, I could cause someone great harm. Even when a blogger writes to argue a point, she should seek to be gracious. There will be fewer clicks in the short term, but this is a gospel issue. Internet shaming is a tactic from the pit of hell and should be avoided at all costs.

A sense of purpose should drive the content of a site. There are too many media-lite parrots on the internet that slightly repackage yesterday’s news to gather a few clicks. My social media streams are overflowing with these sorts of links. A good rule of thumb is that unless you are providing something unique to the conversation, you shouldn't post it and share it. All you are doing is speaking from someone else’s authority and flooding the stream. You may be killing legitimate dialogue in the process.

Additionally, sometimes you just shouldn't post your opinion on the latest scandal in the news because you don’t have enough information about critical race theory, the justice system, internet hacking, or Middle Eastern politics. This doesn't mean you can’t learn about those things, but publishing something assumes a degree of expertise. Doing this improperly can be dangerous and misleading.

So what?

In the end, blogging and social media have potential to make contributions for the Kingdom, both by being evangelistic and by promoting justice. This is true only if we use the available tools well, covered in prayer, seasoned with the gospel, and focused on doing good instead of just self-promotion.

Note: If you find this interesting, you may also be interested in my previous post on Social Media and the Christian.

Social Media Use and the Christian

One of the main limitations of electronic communication is the lack of tone. This means that e-mails between people who are generally unfamiliar with each other have a strong potential to be misread and misinterpreted.

It is no mystery that losing the facial expressions, body language that you get with a face to face conversation. Even the cue of a tone of voice is missing from electronic communication. These make communicating electronically a perpetual danger.

Consider the simple student-professor interaction. A student asks a question via e-mail, which is clearly outlined in the syllabus. The professor has a few choices. The first is to carefully answer the question, eating up valuable time and (perhaps) enabling the inattentiveness that is at the root of the student’s problem. 

A second choice is to simply write back, “It’s in the syllabus.” This is exactly the truth, but the e-mail lacks the gracious tone of voice that communicates to the student that, while they are important as a person made in the image of God, they need to demonstrate the life skills of doing due diligence before pestering someone. Instead, this has the strong potential to be received by the student as a harsh message, which is, most of the time, not warranted or intended.

The Dangers of Facebook Debates

E-mail, at least, offers opportunities for expanding and contextualizing responses.  So do platforms like Facebook. Still, Facebook has its own dangers.

The prime concern with Facebook debates is that you are essentially holding a conversation across the room. This works when you are telling someone you think their puppy is cute or congratulations on getting married. However, when you are explaining a nuanced political point there will be, inevitably, someone who isn’t aware of the context that is listening and misinterpreting the conversation.

In this manner, pieces of a discussion that are assumed but not spoken may lead someone with a different worldview to draw significant conclusions. If terms are not defined, it may lead someone to believe something about the discussion or its participants that just isn’t true. It may be, too, that the relationship between the readers allows a tone to be assumed, instead of expressed. However, since the debate is being read by those outside the circle, it may misrepresent the nature of the argument. Consider the following:

Person 1: “Aaron Rogers is the best quarterback ever.”
Person 2: “You’re an idiot, Joe Montana is better by a mile, just like I’ve always said.”

This conversation may be nothing but chatter between friends, but to the third person who is unaware of the joviality, this may seem harsh. 

Now imagine if the conversation is about an important topic, like an upcoming Supreme Court decision or a theological topic. The public nature of such debates makes them dangerous for maintaining gracious Christian tone.

The Risk of Twitter Exchanges

A greater danger for Christians in the electronic world lies in the abbreviated exchanges that take place on Twitter.

The lack of expressiveness and context in many forums, like e-mail and Facebook, can be overcome by being verbose. Sometimes people overcome it by using emoticons, but I am opposed to those on principle. :-)

On Twitter, however, you get 140 characters. You couldn’t even order a meal in 140 characters. How can you expect to make a convincing argument in that space?  More significantly, how can you hope to communicate your point with grace in that short a span?

Here, again, the conversation taking place in a public space without even the protections of various nuanced privacy settings. As the trolling that takes place when a conference uses a hashtag to collect tweets demonstrates, there are a lot of people with too much time on their hands that are more than glad to be nasty to someone else just for fun.

Additionally, once something is posted on Twitter, there are numerous bots that catalog tweets, sometimes just for the purpose of internet shaming. Suddenly a relatively innocuous tweet you made about a marriage conference can be posted on a website, labeled (with your avatar) as hate speech, because you spoke positively about someone’s presentation. Even if you delete the tweet, those sentiments may be available for an internet eternity.

What this latter example illustrates is that Twitter allows the reader to provide his or her own context. This should make use consider what the appropriate use of Twitter really is.

It should also make us think carefully about how we treat other people’s tweets. If we expect a modicum of grace for our tweets, we should grant the same to others, even those with whom we strongly disagree.

There is certainly more to be discussed about the use of social media as Christians. I’m interested in reading your comments below and continuing this very important conversation.

Note: This post (and perhaps some to follow) have been spurred on by an ongoing conversation with my friend, Sam Morris (@samorris8) who is the social media guru for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.