Wednesday, December 4, 2013

The Danger of a Broken World

Community is risky. This something we need to remember. Now community is commanded by God (Hebrews 10:24,25; Ephesians 4:1-6; Romans 12:4,5). It is also worth the risk. But we must remember that there is a risk. Any time we love people we risk being hurt by people. I do not see this as an excuse not to love. Love is the chief thing God requires of us (John 13:34,35; 1 John 4:7-21; Matthew 22:36-40). But we need to understand the danger when going in and count the cost. Nor can it be avoided merely by correctly handling the situation. One of Jesus' own apostle betrayed Him. To risk love is to risk hurt. But to avoid love is to lapse into a state of total self-centeredness contrary to everything God wants us to be. For He took the risk of loving us (John 3:16; Romans 5:6-8; 1 John 3:16).
Posted by at
Labels:

14 comments:

  1. kc bobDecember 4, 2013 at 3:46 PM

    A few days ago I read this in Acts:

    "And all the believers met together in one place and shared everything they had. They sold their property and possessions and shared the money with those in need."

    I think that this is the sort of community that, at some level, God desires. Probably not doable in a country where Evangelicals think that the govt spends too much money on the poor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike Erich the Mad TheologianDecember 4, 2013 at 8:33 PM

      Certainly that is an aspect of what is involved. And I do think we have absorbed too much of the capitalist ethic (if you are poor it must be your own fault) to make this an easy thing to do.

      Delete
    2. kc bobDecember 5, 2013 at 7:23 AM

      Caring for the poor is the heart of community. The church as a whole is simply lost in this area.

      Delete
    3. Mike Erich the Mad TheologianDecember 5, 2013 at 5:27 PM

      I do not know we have totally lost it. The are Rescue Missions that carry it on. But it is certainly not as important or central as it should be.

      Delete
  2. kc bobDecember 5, 2013 at 8:55 PM

    True. Many shelters are run by believers. And some of them probably receive a few bucks from local churches. And then there is the Salvation Army and the Catholics who care for the poor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike Erich the Mad TheologianDecember 6, 2013 at 6:20 PM

      I am not sure I take your point, but I agree we do not do enough. I am not sure I want to disagree over badly we are doing.

      (However for the record I should note that the Salvation Army began as a Christian organization and still is in principle. though many, but not all, involved in it have a theology more liberal then I am comfortable with. You can say the Catholic church does not count because it is a different organization with a distinct theology, but I would not do the same with the Salvation Army.)

      Delete
  3. kc bobDecember 6, 2013 at 8:07 PM

    My point that I unsuccessfully tried to make was that parachurch and liberal ministries do a better job of caring for the poor. Evangelicals do a poor job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike Erich the Mad TheologianDecember 7, 2013 at 11:30 AM

      I do not know that I would disagree with you on that but I am not clear whether you are saying parachurch ministries do a better job then evangelical churches or non-evangelical parachurch ministries do better than evangelical ones. But I am just confused over details.

      Delete
  4. Mike Erich the Mad TheologianDecember 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

    I am convinced that Evangelicals are not doing as much in this area as we should be doing. But I have not seen any definite statistics and who does how much in this area. If you have any I would be curious. I would not be surprised to find Evangelicals do not come out well in this area. But I feel like I am talking off the top of my head and have no hard data.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. kc bobDecember 7, 2013 at 1:27 PM

      No stats but my experience leads me to think that both liberal and conservative churches designate a small percentage of their expenditures on the poor. It is why the preaching of the tithe to the church makes no sense to me. Why not support the folks who show by their works that they love and care for the poor. Why donate so much money to people who by their actions do little for the poor.

      Delete
    2. Mike Erich the Mad TheologianDecember 8, 2013 at 7:03 PM

      I don't know whether I want to go into the whole question of the tithe again. But I do agree we do not do near enough to help those in need.

      Delete
    3. kc bobDecember 9, 2013 at 6:28 AM

      I get that Mike. My point is that one can believe in the tithe and still designate part of it for so-called para-church ministries. It seems to me that "a" church does not need to be a funnel for the tithe. Perhaps tithing to "the" local church can encompass local Christian run homeless shelters who are a part "the" local church. The result would be that the tithe would still go to "the" local church even if it is not funneled through one of the many expressions of it.

      Delete
    4. Mike Erich the Mad TheologianDecember 9, 2013 at 7:23 PM

      As I have said I do really believe in parachurch organizations, but the simply the church doing different things in things in different contexts. In this I am not sure I like the idea of various organizations competing for funds and I wish there were some way we could work together better. In this I have generally felt the priority should be on one's local community where hopefully you are encouraged and shepherded. But while I think I should consider the needs of that community I also believe we also need to consider the organizations that genuinely help the poor and needy. I leave it up to an individuals how much to give to each, but certainly helping the poor was part of the Old Testament tithe.

      Delete
    5. kc bobDecember 10, 2013 at 5:52 AM

      I called them so-called para-church organizations because I do not see them as anything but a true expression of "the" church. When we use the word parachurch we are forced to see these beautiful groups in a pejorative sense as something outside of the church. As you have indicated these groups are certainly a part of "the" church. In that sense I think that they are deserving of donations every bit as much as any local expression of "the" church. In some respects they are a better representation of the church than the club-like groups of Christians that we call church.

      I know that it is radical for some to accept that these groups are a part of "the" church and every bit deserving of the tithe or anything one wants to call things donated in support of the kingdom. But when we make our giving decisions, we would be wise to consider who in America does the lion-share of caring for those who are sick, in prison and poor.

      All that said Mike, I think that we probably agree more in this than disagree. We both want to see "the" church care for the least of these and cheer on the ones who are doing the work of the kingdom whoever they are.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)