|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Faith and works
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
James 2:14-17 quote:
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
OK, we were discussing this briefly before Church this morning, in light of a suggestion that favouritism was shown to the rich (verses 1-4) because they were seen to be blessed by God and that the poor were seen to somehow deserved their poverty - which lead us to the subjected of "deserving" and "undeserving" poor and state provided welfare. Anyway, that's context ... here's the observation that we may find worth discussing.
Historically, considerable parts of welfare were provided by churches and church organisations - education, health care, alms houses, charitable giving etc. The churches saw people "without clothes and daily food" and saw to their physical needs. But, as the state (and private enterprise in some cases) took over the church backed out of practical aid to a large extent. The church still had faith, but the opportunities for practical works dwindled.
At the same time, church membership declined rapidly. Is it a coincidence that declining practical works and declining church membership are correlated? Or, by handing over practical aid to the poor did the church also create a situation where our faith was no longer matched by works, and that faith slowly died?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
The motive for charity seems to have been to create opportunity to preach though. Practical meeting of needs was not an end in itself for James.
Did social unconcern lead to decline?
Certainly possible but is the inference of the OP that church is really got social justice or meeting practical needs as a core business?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
It's an interesting thought - I wouldn't be surprised if the typically active young Christian found a church without mission to be too cloistered for comfort. I'd guess, though, that a prevalent mechanistic worldview during the mid 1900s added to the pressure on church membership, something that seems to be on the reverse in more recent decades. Perhaps a useful question to research now would be: Does the rise of interest in matters spiritual in recent years map to a corresponding increase in social mission?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The motive for charity seems to have been to create opportunity to preach though. Practical meeting of needs was not an end in itself for James.
How so? There's little in James about preaching, much less about charity being a means to the end of preaching. The emphasis of the quoted teaching seems to be judgementalism and true faithfulness - mercy is superior to judgement, so be merciful, faith is shown in what one does. I agree the deeds are not an end in themselves, they show that faith is genuine when actions and words are in accord.
quote:
Did social unconcern lead to decline?
Certainly possible but is the inference of the OP that church is really got social justice or meeting practical needs as a core business?
Well, that was my question. Did the move from church run practical social aid to state run practical social aid take something vital from the church. The question is, is practical aid to those in need part of the core business of the church and having lost much of that has the church become an expression of faith that is dead?
I'm really asking questions here rather than offering answers.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I'd guess, though, that a prevalent mechanistic worldview during the mid 1900s added to the pressure on church membership
I'm sure there are multiple causes for declining church membership. I'm just speculating about one possible cause.
quote:
Does the rise of interest in matters spiritual in recent years map to a corresponding increase in social mission?
Churches in my experience are getting more involved in social mission - food banks, international aid, and political campaigning. Although when I was more actively involved in evangelical groups (20+ years ago) it was quite common for many of the larger evangelical churches who were having some success at bucking the trend of declining membership either considered social mission a distraction from evangelism or a tool for evangelism. I'm not sure if that's still the case, there seems to be a move away from that position to one of compassionate mercy without the value in the soup kitchen judged in evangelistic success.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
It's an extension of Paul's letter to the Corinthians about ministry and love imv. Faith with the love that compels us to help others - and there will always be others to help, whatever the social system - is dead. Quote here
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
While I agree that there will always be others to help, it seems at times that the nature of the "business" of helping has changed with the introduction of effective state provided welfare.
The poor are still with us, but with housing benefit, unemployment and in-work benefits etc. very few of the poor within our own nation are homeless and starving - although recent changes to the welfare system has certainly brought some changes there. The small minority of people on the streets at night are often there for more than just being poor, often with mental health or addiction problems as well. The need for the provision of almshousing etc has significantly reduced. It is easier for the church to say that it isn't our job to feed and cloth the poor, the state is supposed to do that - and, a lot of campaigning by the church is to effectively say that the state is failing to do it's job (while supporting food banks, soup kitchens, homeless shelters etc to cover the gaps in state provision).
Compared to previous centuries, the 20th and 21st century has seen the church take an increasingly less hands on approach to helping the poor. We're not providing affordable housing, hospitals, schools, food and clothing. We're campaigning for the government to do that better, we're giving money for others to do that (especially overseas). Hence my question, has the focus of the church moved from a balance of both faith and deeds, to an out-of-balance mostly faith position? As a corrolary to that, has the emphasis in some churches on relatively minor points of doctrine (eg: various forms of "millenialins") been part of that shift? And, if that has happened is that a contributing factor to the decline in the church in the west?
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's an extension of Paul's letter to the Corinthians about ministry and love imv. Faith with the love that compels us to help others ... is dead.
I entirely agree it's consistent with Paul. I think you've missed something out there though, otherwise you're not making sense. Shouldn't that be "Faith without the love that compels us to help others ... is dead.", in which case I entirely agree.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Thank you, yes that was what I intended to say.
Faith and love must be inextricably linked, with hope. The love of God and of others compels us individually and corporately to give our time and resources to do good works, for God's glory not ours.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
How so? There's little in James about preaching, much less about charity being a means to the end of preaching.
Agreed. However like so many issues we view it via the lens of our preoccupation. The early church certainly concerned itself with the poor. The spiritual and physical were certainly not mutually exclusive categories. However, the focus was, for them, always the gospel, Christ crucified. What is the point of just feeding the bodies of the lost?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Interesting discussion. I have friends whose response to mention of need is "the government takes care of that."
Which shows ignorance of just what the government provides. I had a homeless friend several years ago - over 50 and no children meant no welfare, too old to be employed, too young for social security (and as a stay at home mom with no work hours she's not eligible for social security). Not eligible for women's shelters because they give priority to women with children and that priority keeps them full.
Now, I admit there may be missing pieces to the story, but last I heard welfare is only for a few years anyway.
The USA safety net has holes.
I wonder if believing "the government takes care of that" harms the believer. Do they stop "seeing" the poor even while stepping over a sleeping homeless man, because they genuinely believe he is homeless by choice since the government (supposedly) offers him housing? When we stop seeing people, do we stop seeing God?
I don't know, but I am interested in the discussion.
Part of the problem might be a "need" to not see the poor because awareness of need creates obligation to do something but the need is overwhelming. Sort of like the difference between gladly helping the first ten migrants, vs feeling overwhelmed by the most recent 2000 migrants; to avoid being overwhelmed we build fences, physical or emotional, to keep "them" out of our awareness and regain a sense of stability on our own lives.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
How so? There's little in James about preaching, much less about charity being a means to the end of preaching.
Agreed. However like so many issues we view it via the lens of our preoccupation. The early church certainly concerned itself with the poor. The spiritual and physical were certainly not mutually exclusive categories. However, the focus was, for them, always the gospel, Christ crucified. What is the point of just feeding the bodies of the lost?
This bothers me. My view would be that charity for the needy, and the Gospel, are not separable; if you have no charity then you have no Gospel. James puts this quite bluntly; faith without good works, without charity, is dead, useless as a corpse. Or has James got it wrong?
Jamat, mate, I could see where you were coming from, until your last sentence. That last sentence is something - well, let's put it this way, it's more than just a question of disagreement. Apart from which - who is any of us, to say whether someone is lost? Blessed are the poor, and all that ...
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Historically, considerable parts of welfare were provided by churches and church organisations - education, health care, alms houses, charitable giving etc. The churches saw people "without clothes and daily food" and saw to their physical needs. But, as the state (and private enterprise in some cases) took over the church backed out of practical aid to a large extent. The church still had faith, but the opportunities for practical works dwindled.
At the same time, church membership declined rapidly. Is it a coincidence that declining practical works and declining church membership are correlated? Or, by handing over practical aid to the poor did the church also create a situation where our faith was no longer matched by works, and that faith slowly died?
In some sociological texts there's the argument that when the British state gradually took over from the church in providing assistance to the poor it removed one of the points of contact between the church and local communities, particularly working class communities. This lack of contact then became a factor in church decline.
However, your first paragraph throws up another question. If helping the poor was a normal church activity throughout the past at what point in history did the churches begin to ask themselves whether helping the poor was a form of evangelism, or whether it was virtuous for its own sake? I imagine that the problem was christalising when the poor began to be seen as external to the church, rather than being right there in the pews. If that's the case, then it was probably becoming a serious issue by the mid-19th c., as organised religion and the working classes were increasingly likely to be alienated from one another. A study of the history of the Sunday School might be useful in this respect.
In the here and now, I think concentrating primarily on 'serving the community' without engaging systematically in evangelism is problematic for churches, because it often absorbs manpower and resources which are not then available for evangelism and encouraging people into active life in the church. This then exacerbates the problems of decline.
I guess that the large evangelical churches have now realised that they have the manpower and resources to spare to do this work - and it creates positive vibes for them even if they don't call it 'evangelism'. But for many MOTR churches with small congregations and few resources it'll be increasingly difficult for them to play their traditionally generous role. The needy (and local funding bodies, etc.) also have higher expectations of professionalism now, and a well-funded evangelical project might be more likely to provide it than a MOTR church in more straightened circumstances.
[ 22. September 2015, 00:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
who is any of us, to say whether someone is lost?
But in this context it is the view of the early church right?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
who is any of us, to say whether someone is lost?
But in this context it is the view of the early church right?
The best record we have of the very early Church lies in the Acts and Epistles of the New Testament; and so far as I can see there is no such thing as a unified view. But the idea that the poor are necessarily all lost is not one I can find much support for.
I think we can record a gentlemanly but total disagreement here.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
who is any of us, to say whether someone is lost?
But in this context it is the view of the early church right?
The best record we have of the very early Church lies in the Acts and Epistles of the New Testament; and so far as I can see there is no such thing as a unified view. But the idea that the poor are necessarily all lost is not one I can find much support for.
I think we can record a gentlemanly but total disagreement here.
Ok Did I suggest that somehow? I do not think they are more particularly lost than anyone else.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There is evidence to support the idea that being rich was a sign of being blessed by God (and, presumably that therefore poverty was a sign of not being so blessed) was a widely held view in the 1st century. But, also that this view was challenged within the Church (after all, someone important to the Church said "Blessed are the poor").
The more important question ISTM is what motivated (and, still motivates) people to provide practical assistance?
Was this charity provided simply because someone was in need and the Church (or individuals within the Church) had the means to meet that need? Or, was the giving of practical assistance also linked to evangelism and care for non-physical needs? Was the receipt of practical help contingent upon the recipient also accepting Christ? Or, was that a hoped for benefit? Or, was practical aid given without a thought of whether the recipient was Christian, or going to be influenced to become a Christian? And, the question of witness extended beyond the recipient to the local community as well.
There are some conflicting texts to ponder. First, many of the texts (eg: in Acts 2) suggest that there was generosity within the Church, that the poor within the Christian community were cared for - but, did that extend to those beyond the Church? In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says we should give in secret so that not even our left arm knows what the right is doing (Mt 6:1-4), which pretty much rules out charitable giving as an evangelistic activity, yet we're to let our light shine before people so that they may see our good deeds and praise God (Mt 5:16).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, to further confound the issue, there's the fact that charity to non-Christians often resulted in conversion--at least, if the case of Aeneas is typical. As far as we know he was not a believer before his healing.
I pulled a couple of quotes out of some recently published material I was editing. As I don't have permission to quote the unfinished ms., I will give you only the quoted-from-elsewhere bits along with references:
The emperor Julian writing to Arsacius (Sozom. v. 15-16): “This godlessness (i.e., Christianity) is mainly furthered by its philanthropy towards strangers and its careful attention to the bestowal of the dead.... These godless Galileans feed not only their own poor but ours; our poor lack our care.”
And this, from this web site:
quote:
More than merely condemning abortion and infanticide, however, early Christians provided alternatives by rescuing and adopting children who were abandoned. For instance, Callistus (d. c. A.D. 223) provided refuge to abandoned children by placing them in Christian homes, and Benignus of Dijon (3rd century) offered nourishment and protection to abandoned children, including some with disabilities caused by unsuccessful abortions.
This is the fruit of just ten minutes' or so searching. Apparently the early Christians had a reputation for caring for everybody, not just themselves. And their charity included those who could not be evangelized by it, such as the dead who no one else would bury. I think it's safe to say the early Christians practiced charity toward whoever crossed their path, and not simply as an aid to evangelism.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Apparently the early Christians had a reputation for caring for everybody, not just themselves. And their charity included those who could not be evangelized by it, such as the dead who no one else would bury. I think it's safe to say the early Christians practiced charity toward whoever crossed their path, and not simply as an aid to evangelism.
To be fair, burying the dead isn't something that happens in secret. The dead person won't know about it, but those who are round about will see it and reflect, and may be converted as a result....
Coming back to the present, I'm not dismissing what the Bible has to say, but I have a hunch that the ordinary mainstream churches with their history of raising funds for (non-religious) charities, or running drop-in centres for old people, etc. benefit from the inheritance of the state church paradigm, in which everyone in the community was considered to be within the remit of the church's care. Even the 'mainline' churches in the non-confessional USA benefit from this ancient heritage.
However, the sectarian evangelical churches come out of a very different paradigm, one in which they were themselves initially looked down upon as socially inferior and were rejected by the 'community'. Their duty, therefore, was to strengthen each other and to ensure their own survival, rather than to bestow largesse upon the surrounding community.
The tables have now turned, of course, and in the USA the sectarian evangelicals are now more powerful and influential than the mainstream churches. (In the UK they're smaller and less visible on the whole - although individual congregations may be much larger and wealthier than the average.) But the old distrust of 'the community' and the worry about maintaining their own survival may still be present.
I suspect too that although individuals may be expected to do good works in secret, churches like all institutions need to gain some visible benefit from being charitable. For churches, giving alms or running projects is a sign of their wealth and prestige. An evangelical church that does these things without openly fishing for converts(!) is showing the world that it has left the cultural margins and wants a visible and influential presence in the community beyond its own membership.
[ 23. September 2015, 14:41: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
To be fair, burying the dead isn't something that happens in secret.
I believe the catacombs tell against this theory.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Tobit shows the concept was at least out there...
And seriously, the church that buries unknown, unclaimed paupers is unlikely to see any direct evangelistic benefit to itself. If the deceased had family who cared, they wouldn't have needed charity, would they?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Coming back to the present, I'm not dismissing what the Bible has to say, but I have a hunch that the ordinary mainstream churches with their history of raising funds for (non-religious) charities, or running drop-in centres for old people, etc. benefit from the inheritance of the state church paradigm, in which everyone in the community was considered to be within the remit of the church's care. Even the 'mainline' churches in the non-confessional USA benefit from this ancient heritage.
However, the sectarian evangelical churches come out of a very different paradigm, one in which they were themselves initially looked down upon as socially inferior and were rejected by the 'community'. Their duty, therefore, was to strengthen each other and to ensure their own survival, rather than to bestow largesse upon the surrounding community.
The tables have now turned, of course, and in the USA the sectarian evangelicals are now more powerful and influential than the mainstream churches. (In the UK they're smaller and less visible on the whole - although individual congregations may be much larger and wealthier than the average.) But the old distrust of 'the community' and the worry about maintaining their own survival may still be present.
I suspect too that although individuals may be expected to do good works in secret, churches like all institutions need to gain some visible benefit from being charitable. For churches, giving alms or running projects is a sign of their wealth and prestige. An evangelical church that does these things without openly fishing for converts(!) is showing the world that it has left the cultural margins and wants a visible and influential presence in the community beyond its own membership.
Svitlana, I find this interesting, but I think with regard to the U.S. it's off base. We never had an establishment of a size or history to lead to such attitudes. What we had, very early on, were a whole lot of differing "establishments" of different flavors and traditions depending on the location, none of which ever managed to become culturally dominant, at least beyond a very limited area. We also had a number of religious groups (such as my own, the LCMS) which came to America precisely because they felt persecuted by the establishment wherever they used to be. And from the beginning there were the not-yet-converted American Indian tribes right next door to everybody, as well as the Catholics up North and down South. All of this means you develop a missionary/evangelistic attitude almost immediately (or refuse to!), the minute you have to decide exactly who falls in your remit of care. Are you responsible for the welfare of American Indians? What about those who have converted? What about the people in the next village, with their popish practices / dreary colorless rigidity (pick the adjective you wish)? What about the French voyageurs who come through on occasion? And then there are all the indentured servants coming over from Scotland with their Presbyterian or Catholic ways… And so on, and so forth.
What this creates (besides hopefully an evangelistic and charitable spirit) is a tendency to regard EVERYBODY as “sectarian,” because nobody has a clear majority, nothing is monolithic, and flavors of Christianity vary so greatly even within one colony. Personalities become more important—a great preacher may draw hearers from other backgrounds, and some of these may switch. People settle in towns where there is no worshipping group of their usual flavor, and gravitate to the closest, or to the one that seems most familiar. And those who might have been “looked down” upon in the auld countree are now on a nearly equal footing in the new, which tends to spark new energy and efforts. You can easily trace the development from this situation to what we have today, which is more or less identical except writ larger—and of course now we have many more nonChristian religions in the mix.
What this means, unfortunately, is that NOBODY really has a sense that “the people in this area are our responsibility,” with the exception of baby immigrant churches like ours. When there are 30 different denominations represented in 10 square miles, who is to say who should be picking up responsibility for that homeless man or this elderly widow? Our very families are usually fragmented across two or more religious traditions—which makes for interesting times when you need to arrange funerals, weddings, etc. My own family includes Lutherans (LCMS), Catholics, Jews, agnostics/atheists, conservative Baptists, liberal Lutherans, Presybyterians, and the lapsed in each category. My husband is the son of a CMA pastor and the brother of a Baptist pastor and a Methodist pastor (himself being a Lutheran pastor). Just imagine what our family talks about at Thanksgiving!
So I would say that in the U.S., charity has always been done not because the needy are considered to fall within the remit of a particular church, nor because a church or denomination is trying to “show the world that it has left the cultural margins and wants a visible and influential presence in the community beyond its own membership.” (When we want to do THAT, we issue pompous statements and blether away to the (bored) news media.) No, when we do charity, we do it because that’s what Christian churches do. It’s in the Christian DNA. Sometimes the main thought is “We have to help,” sometimes it’s “Hey, this might be an aid in evangelism,” and most often it’s probably a mix of the two. But the social constructs you mention just don’t come into it, IMHO. We have always been far too much of a rabble.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Thank you for your explanation.
With regard to what you've said, then, why is it that some American churches, so people say, are refusing to 'do charity', if it's within American church culture (as well as the gospel, of course) to do so? Why has this element of Americanness declined in some quarters?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Thank you for your explanation.
With regard to what you've said, then, why is it that some American churches, so people say, are refusing to 'do charity', if it's within American church culture (as well as the gospel, of course) to do so? Why has this element of Americanness declined in some quarters?
Not American-ness, but "Christian DNA." I fear very much that a church which refuses to do charity to any and all is in major spiritual danger--well on the road to "Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent." (Rev. 2:5)
Of course, an outsider judging such things needs to keep in mind that an awful lot of charity flies "under the radar"--a church which appears to be doing nothing may actually be supporting refugees, feeding the hungry, caring for elderly, etc. but in a very unpublicized way. Many US churches decline anything to do with government on the grounds that you can't trust those bastards (to be fair, they have reason) and opt to meet needs as best they can working independently or as part of an association. Even more US churches have crap media skills, and what they do is never found out by anybody it seems but the Lord himself. (No, no, I'm not thinking about my host congregation's website, newsletter, etc. at all, of course not!)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
As you say, it may be best for outsiders not to judge. Jesus said something about that too.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Thanks. I wasn't trying to reflect on you personally, actually--just thinking about how absolutely incomprehensible the US culture appears to a lot of Shipmates. I've had interesting conversations recently with a few and it's been a real eye opener!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm sure the same thing applies in reverse, Lamb Chopped. We must come across as a pretty odd bunch to people on your side of the Pond.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Thanks. I wasn't trying to reflect on you personally, actually--just thinking about how absolutely incomprehensible the US culture appears to a lot of Shipmates. I've had interesting conversations recently with a few and it's been a real eye opener!
Oh no, I wasn't accusing you of judging me! I meant that we shouldn't be too quick to judge other people's churches. If we're not with them on a regular basis we might not know everything they do, whether as a group or as individuals, which is what you were getting at, I think.
Returning to the OP, I also wonder if there's such a clear distinction between good works with evangelism and good works without. I know a Baptist minister who makes it clear that when his church organises charitable work for the community, it's important that the community knows where the impulse for that work comes from: the church's Christian faith. The Anglican vicar doesn't view this in the same way. However, the Baptists do actually get more Muslims coming into their building for various activities, some of them even feeling comfortable enough to participate in Christian worship occasionally.
Atheists may be different and require different 'treatment', but it's been said that Muslims are more appreciative of and respectful towards Christians who are open about their faith, rather than the sort who visibly tone things down for fear of causing offense or being seen to evangelise. Of course, there's evangelism and there's evangelism; condemning the Yemeni mums who come to the ESOL class to the burning pits of hell, or forcing them to listen to a sermon before the lesson starts isn't necessarily what's meant.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Alan Cresswell: The question is, is practical aid to those in need part of the core business of the church
It is impossible to justify a 'no' answer to this.
Of course we must extend a helping hand when it is in our gift.
As an off-shoot thought though, My church does stuff to support missionary efforts etc but does that let me personally off the hook when I see a street dweller begging? Of course not, but it is tempting to dismiss individual responsibility on the grounds that the organisation is doing something to help.
My son used to be part of a group called 'drug arm'. They would drive round the city in the wee small hours giving out cups of milo and sandwiches to addicts. I don't know if it still happens but it was quite dangerous and could backfire on them.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
