- Individual Christians still have a mandate to be neighborly--not only to "one another" (i.e., to other believers) but also to those outside the church (Galatians 6:10). In fact, this neighborliness should be of a quantity and quality that it stands out in the community (Matt 5:16).
- The injunction to neighborliness can extend incidentally to the institutional church. In a day when most American churches have established a permanent presence in the community (i.e., a church building), it seems that the church inherits with this presence some basic responsibility for neighborliness. A church that gives a gift certificate for a local restaurant to a desperate family or clears the snow from the sidewalk of the 92-year old lady next door has not abandoned the faith; on the contrary, it has exhibited the faith.
- There also seems to be no sustainable objection to the church institutionally organizing some neighborly "event" as a means to establishing goodwill and gathering an audience for the gospel--an open house, a dinner, a musical presentation, etc. After all, no unbeliever wants to hear the gospel, so it would seem that the same Christian conduct that "makes the teaching about God our Savior attractive" on an individual level, creating goodwill unto a willing hearing of the gospel (Titus 2:10), can rightly extend to the institutional level.
What I am saying is that the institutional church must resist adopting a programmatic social agenda as an end. The church has no responsibility to rescue babies from abortion (though its members may do so), no responsibility to build hospitals (though its members may do so), no responsibility to provide medical or dental services (though doctors and dentists within its membership may do so), etc. Further, the church must constantly guard itself lest social measures for gaining a hearing for the gospel (1) distract the church from its more primary social responsibility of benevolence toward its own membership (1 Tim 5:18; Gal 6:10), (2) displace individual responsibility in evangelism (the overwhelming emphasis of evangelism in the NT), (3) become regarded as means not only of gaining a hearing for the gospel but also of creating faith (1 Cor 1-2), (4) become so programmatic that the intention of gaining a hearing for the gospel is diminished or lost entirely, or (5) become so costly that the explicit mission of the church is jeopardized.
Finally, in view of the extraordinary pressure exerted by culture for the church to become a social organization, it behooves us who are in church leadership to regularly remind the church that their responsibility to "those without" is not to transform their culture, but to evangelize them. May God help us to that end.
MAS
5 comments:
Thanks, Mark. Very helpful.
Here's a question I've had as I've struggled to teach this principle to church folks over the years.
We tell our people two principles:
1. The institutional church does not have social responsibility, but individual Christians may be involved in some social action (you mentioned saving babies, building hospitals, etc).
2. We also tell them that any charitable giving they do should go to their local church.
Yet these two principles seem to somewhat contradict each other. If we're telling our people that their money should go to their church, yet the church is not going to use that money for building hospitals, feeding the hungry, or saving babies, then the people don't have any additional funds to do social work as they wish to be involved in it.
So a couple questions:
1. Do you agree with the second principle above?
If so,
2. How can both of these principle work together. Should a family limit its church giving to 10% and then designate other funds to other social work (as they wish)? Or should they give all of their money to the church and be involved in social work (as they wish) only with actions?
I don't actually pastor a church, but if I did, I would not instruct the membership to restrict charitable giving and benevolence to the church. I would strongly emphasize (a la Gal 6:10; 1 Tim 5:17-18; etc.) that they have a more primary responsibility to the mission of the local church, the sustenance of her ministers, and needs of her members. But I don't see any biblical basis for discouraging charity outside the church. This seems to violate the spirit of Galatians 6:10.
MAS
To clarify, The church does have a responsibility to the care of it's members as well correct? You are specifically dealing with the churches responsibility to the lost?
Yes, buried in this long post I mention that the church has as a primary responsibility benevolence toward its membership. Sorry this was not clearer.
MAS
Thanks, Mark. That's helpful.
Post a Comment