Morality, Politics, and a Broken Heart

Written on Nov. 11, 2008 

It would appear that in many ways those who view themselves as fighting the battle for morality in America are losing ground. Although with the passage of Proposition 8 in California and similar measures in Florida and Arizona, homosexual marriage is banned for the present, the general trend in America, at least in matters of sexual morality, is towards greater and greater licentiousness. With the election of Barack Obama, and his stated intention to push forward the Freedom of Choice Act, the pro-life movement has undoubtedly been dealt a major blow for years to come. Whether or not there was ever any substance to the implied claim behind the name, the existence of a bona fide “moral majority” in America seems to be on the fast track to becoming a relic of the past. In a democratic system, the opinions of the majority rule. And as much as we might hate to admit it, the results of the recent election make it clear that the majority in America are not prepared to give those with a consistently biblical worldview a mandate to carry out their convictions through the legal system and governing institutions of our nation. 

In other areas, there are encouraging signs of moral and ethical advance. Although we are still clearly light-years away from totally obliterating the blight of racism from among us, the general tendency does seem to be toward equalization and reconciliation. I have personally been deeply impacted on the several occasions I have visited the National Civil Rights Museum on the premises of the old Lorraine Motel in downtown Memphis, where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was brutally assassinated in 1968. The walk down the symbolic corridor of the history of civil rights is a living memorial to the fact that when people stand up for what is right and refuse to cave in to the pressures around them it is indeed possible to effect change for the better. I believe that in many ways the election of Barack Obama is, as it were, the crowning jewel on the long trail of struggles and accomplishments towards the goal of racial equality and justice. 

As Christians, however, we are called to be more than moral and ethical crusaders. As the Body of Christ, we are called to take upon ourselves the father heart of God for a corrupt, dying, and desperate world that has lost its way on the path of truth and justice. It is also true that we are called to take a prophetic stance toward the evil and unrighteousness we see around us, and that at times this may involve a righteous indignation similar to that shown by Jesus when He overturned the tables of the money-changers in the temple courts. But I believe there is one element that determines whether our words and actions in support of morality and ethical justice truly reflect the heart of God or not. And that element is a broken heart. 

In some ways, a moral and political agenda driven by a broken heart can be hard to distinguish from one that is not. On many occasions, the actual votes that are tallied may end up being the same on both accounts. But, deep down, at a root level, they are worlds apart. To illustrate, I believe we could well add another verse to the beginning of 1 Corinthians 13: If I have a 100% “moral report card” rating, and give all my time, all my efforts, and all my money to support all the right causes, but have not love—if I am not motivated at the core of my being by a humble, contrite spirit, and a broken heart before the Lord—I am nothing, and I gain nothing. 

In the world of politics, the key is expediency. In order to move your agenda forward, you must know how to form coalitions. You must be loyal to the party platform. You must know how to use the media and the power of persuasion. If given the chance, you must know how to “stick it” to your opponent. For us, as citizens of the Kingdom of God, I see a special danger in taking our cues from those in the public media who may share a commitment to certain planks of our moral agenda but who do not share our commitment to the lordship of Christ, and who are not motivated at the core of their being by a broken heart. 

In practical terms, how does this play out? I believe that the following questions may help us to sort a good bit of this out:

On the issue of abortion, what is it that truly drives us? Do we really and truly grieve the tragic loss of millions of innocent lives? Do we feel the pain of mothers and fathers who are deceived by the enemy into sacrificing the precious life of their unborn children? Are we sympathetic to the social and economic plight of many, which in one way or another plays into their deception?

On the issue of gay rights, do we really and truly “hate the sin and love the sinner”? Do we feel compassion for those who sense they did not choose to be the way they are (whether we agree with this assessment or not)? Are we really and truly broken-hearted for the children that might possibly suffer the negative consequences of being raised in a home without a healthy mother-and-father parenting team?

On the issue of racism and civil rights, are we truly moved by a desire for friendship, understanding, repentance, and reconciliation with those who are different than us? Do we feel the pain of those who have been systematically discriminated against and whose lot in life has been pre-determined to one degree or another by the color of their skin, their national or ethnic background, gender, or religious beliefs? 

On the issue of war, do we truly mourn the casualties—not only the deaths, but also the physical, psychological, social, and economic trauma—suffered on both sides of the conflict? Independently of what we feel are the best means to accomplish it, are we motivated more by a desire for freedom, justice, and protection of oppressed people around the world from the cruel hands of tyranny and terrorism than by a desire for vengeance and defense of our national pride?

On the issue of the economy and social welfare, do we really and truly desire a society in which the weak and helpless are taken care of with dignity and compassion? Independently of what we feel may be the best path to get there, do we honestly long for an economy that is able to provide a worthy job, a decent education, adequate housing, and basic health care for everyone? Do we want to see a system in place in which everyone who is physically and mentally able is encouraged to work productively with the hands and minds God has given them in order that they might have a healthy sense of well-being and accomplishment?

On the issue of the environment, does it sadden us to see God’s creation selfishly exploited for the unfettered advance of commercial interests? Do we really and truly take to heart the stewardship God has given us to care for the world around us as well as we possibly can?

On the issue of immigration, independently of what we think may be the best solution, do we feel compassion for the plight of those born and raised in contexts that do not allow them the same privileges and opportunities we enjoy as native-born Americans? Do we feel genuine sympathy for those who are doing the best they can to scrape together enough to provide for the basic needs of their family? Are we truly generous and big-hearted with the blessings God has showered upon us as a nation?

On the issue of crime, are we motivated by a sense of grief for the pain inflicted upon the victims, and the losses they suffer? Provided the rights and well-being of the victims are taken care of, do we also have a heart that desires the repentance, forgiveness, restitution and rehabilitation of those who have given in to the temptation of the devil and ended up committing criminal acts against their fellow man? 

In the end, we may never know for sure the political consequences of our actions and approach. It may well be that God Himself is working against our efforts for moral reform in the political arena with a view towards bringing His judgment upon America. However, none of that takes away from our responsibility to do what is right, and even more importantly, to do what we do with an attitude of humility and brokenness before God. It may well mean losing many more elections. For the captives of Judah in Babylon, God had determined a period of 70 years. Personally, I do not believe we have biblical warrant to expect true and lasting peace, justice, and morality on the earth until Jesus Himself comes back to establish His kingdom. But in the meantime, we do have a biblical command to be salt and light in the midst of this morally insipid and dark world in which we live.

It may just be that some of those who are put off by the smug, sarcastic, and arrogant attitude of some of the moralists around us will eventually be won over by a kinder and gentler approach, and a heart that really cares. I certainly hope so. But, then again, we can never be sure of that. After all, the same world that opposes us and our efforts for good ended up crucifying the One who embodied more than anyone who has ever lived a genuinely broken heart for the griefs and woes of fallen humanity.

The Title, Office, and Function of “Pastor”

Places in the Bible where church leaders are called “pastors”:

Ephesians 4:11-13 (ESV). “So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

Ezekiel 34 also uses a form of the Hebrew verb ra’ah (“to shepherd”) to refer in a general sense to spiritual leaders in Israel.

Passages where the term “pastor/shepherd” is used as a verb:

1 Peter 5:1-4 (ESV). “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”

John 21:16 (ESV). “He said to him a second time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’” 

Acts 20:28 (ESV). “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”

Many Bible scholars have pointed out that in Acts 20:28 the terms “overseer” and “pastor/shepherd” (used as a verb) are used to refer to the same person, and that in 1 Peter 5:1-4 the terms “elder,” “overseer” (as a verb), and “pastor” (as a verb) are all used to refer to the same person. Strictly speaking, the title of the person in this passage is “elder,” and two of the functions of this person are “overseeing” and “pastoring” (or “shepherding”).

Based on these observations, many Bible students (and I among them) have concluded that the terms “elder,” “overseer,” and “pastor” may be used interchangeably to refer to the same person. Of the three terms, “elder,” “overseer,” and “pastor,” the one that is least common in the Bible to refer to a church leader is the term “pastor.” In modern-day church life (at least in many circles), however, the term that is most widely used is the term “pastor.” This anomaly has created a good deal of confusion. Different churches and traditions sometimes use different terminology to refer to the same thing, and the same terminology to refer to different things.

To make things even more confusing, Ephesians 4:11, the only passage that appears to refer to church leaders as “pastors/shepherds” as a noun also links “pastors/shepherds” to the noun “teachers,” thus implying that they are two aspects of the same role.

All of this leads us to ask a few pointed questions: 

Is it biblically permissible for a woman to teach? I would say that it depends on the context. First Timothy 2:11-12 informs us that, according to Paul, it is not permitted for a woman to “teach or to exercise authority over a man.” Yet Colossians 3:16 generally enjoins all Christians to “teach and admonish one another in all wisdom.” Acts 18:26 informs us that both Aquila and his wife Priscilla “took [Apollos] aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”

What is the function of an overseer? First Timothy 3:1–7 not only lays out for us the qualifications for someone who occupies the office of overseer; it also tells us something of the function of those who occupy this office:

“The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.”

‭‭

A few observations: The masculine pronoun is used exclusively here to refer to those who occupy the office of overseer. Also, one of the qualifications listed is that he must be “the husband of one wife.” I believe this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that for Paul the office of overseer was to be limited to qualified males. 

In addition, though the majority of the qualifications for overseers have to do with personal character, we also learn something here of the function of overseers. First, they are to be “able to teach.” And if they are required to be able to teach, it is a pretty safe assumption that at least part of their job description involved teaching. Next, they are to care for God’s church. The only other time the Greek word translated “take care of” here is used in the New Testament is in the parable of the Good Samaritan when the Samaritan took the beaten up man to the roadside inn/hospital and “took care of” him. The idea is that overseers have a special responsibility to look out for the welfare of the congregations in which they serve. Acts 20:28 (mentioned above) also says that overseers are to “care for the church of God,” though the Greek word in this case means “to shepherd” or “to pastor.”

This thought also calls to mind Hebrews 13:17a, which although not specifically using the terms “overseer,” “elder,” or “pastor,” appears to refer to those occupying that office: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.”

The parallel passage is Titus 1:5–9, in which Paul instructs his apostolic assistant Titus in Crete in much the same way he instructed his apostolic assistant Timothy with regard to his role in Ephesus: 

“This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

‭‭

One of the first things to notice here is that Paul appears to use the terms “elder” and “overseer” interchangeably. He does not, however, use the term “pastor,” either as a noun or as a verb. Also, just as in 1 Timothy 3, he uses the masculine pronoun to refer to elders and overseers, and he stipulates that an elder should be “the husband of one wife.” Once again, in addition to various matters of personal character he is to be qualified to “give instruction in sound doctrine.”

From all the above, I think we can safely infer that among the functions of those occupying the office of “overseer/elder/pastor” are teaching and caring for others in a pastoral sense, similar to the way a shepherd takes care of sheep. What is not quite so clear, however, is the idea that only overseers/elders/pastors are to teach or to care for church members. They may well have a special official responsibility to do so. But others who do not also occupy the office of “overseer/elder/pastor” also sometimes teach and sometimes care for members pastorally.

All this begs the question of whether it is ever appropriate to refer to someone who does not occupy the office of “overseer/elder/pastor” and who exercises the ministry of caring for others in the church by the title “pastor.” I agree that in our current 21st-century church milieu, using the term “pastor” in that sense may give rise to a certain degree of confusion and misunderstanding. It is probably, therefore, unwise to do so. But I do not believe it is technically unbiblical or heterodox to do so. Therefore, in order to determine if a church that refers to women by the title “pastor” is doctrinally aberrant, it will be necessary first of all to determine whether they are using that term to refer to someone who occupies the biblical office of “overseer/elder/pastor” or not.

Christianity Is a Group Activity

In 2010, American Sociological Review published a groundbreaking study entitled “Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction,” carried out by Chaeyoon Lim of the University of Wisconsin, and Robert D. Putnam of Harvard University. According to Lim and Putnam, many previous studies indicate a statistical correspondence between religious belief and a general sense of well-being in life. However, up till then, it had been difficult to put a finger on the precise causes for this. As a result of their analysis of a 2006 telephone survey of a representative sample of 3,108 adults, though, they believe they successfully identified an important additional factor contributing toward this correspondence. 

According to Lim and Putnam, there is significant statistical evidence to point not merely to religious faith, in and of itself, as a primary cause of life satisfaction, but more specifically religious faith coupled with active involvement in a religious community, including especially a significant core of personal relationships with other members of the same community. Interestingly, they claim the evidence does not point toward a significant increase in life satisfaction as a result of religious faith practiced outside of the context of friendships within a religious community, nor as a result of close relationships maintained outside of a specifically religious community. It is only when these two factors are combined that there is a corresponding significant increase in life satisfaction. As they say at the conclusion of the study, “It is neither faith nor communities, per se, that are important, but communities of faith. For life satisfaction, praying together seems to be better than either bowling together or praying alone.” 

Before we get all excited, and look to this study as the foolproof way to convince people to become active in our church, however, it is important to point out, in the interest of honesty, that the results of the study do not point to a significant divergence of life satisfaction among the faithful of different religious communities. As Lim and Putnam observe, “For life satisfaction, what matters is how involved one is with a religious community, not whether that community is Baptist, Catholic, or Mormon.” It is also important to point out that it is not church attendance, in and of itself, that makes the difference, but rather friendships and relationships within a congregation. As a matter of fact, according to Lim and Putnam, “Our analysis also suggests that people who belong to a congregation but have no friends there are even less satisfied than individuals who do not attend religious services or who have no congregation. In short, ‘sitting alone in the pew’ does not enhance one’s life satisfaction.” 

It is also very interesting to note that, apart from significant involvement with a group of close friends in a religious community, “Strength of religious faith does not appear to be an important factor, either. People who believe in God or heaven with an absolute certainty do not differ significantly from those who have less certain views. Another interesting finding is that private religious practices, such as prayer and holding religious services at home, are not significantly related to life satisfaction. It is revealing that the collective experience of religion in a congregation is more closely linked to life satisfaction than are private practices and individual experiences of religion.” 

What does all this mean for us as committed Christians? First of all, I would say that a sociological study, no matter how scientific the methods used, or how accurate the results, is not a sufficiently reliable source upon which to base our beliefs or practice. For us, the only infallible guide of faith and practice is the Bible itself. Next, I would say that, according to the revelation we have received in the Word of God, happiness, in and of itself, is not the end-all of life, nor the sole criterion upon which to base our decisions. As my father, Adrian Rogers, said, “God is not so interested in making you happy and healthy as He is in making you holy.” However, there is a sense in which authentic biblical Christianity ought to be accompanied by a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction in life. As John Piper says, “God is most glorified in you when you are most satisfied in him.” Jesus said, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). Joy and peace are both fruits of the Spirit. 

According to Lim and Putnam, the study does not measure happiness per se, but rather life satisfaction: “In general, ‘happiness’ tends to tap a short-term, transient assessment of mood, whereas ‘life satisfaction’ reflects more stable evaluations of personal well-being.” Thus, while neither happiness nor life satisfaction ought to be our ultimate aim in life, I think we are right to view life satisfaction, as measured by Lim and Putnam’s study, as a significant factor when evaluating spiritual health. Supposed “Christians” who are consistently dissatisfied with their lives are not a good testimony to the authenticity of their faith, and the type of “Christianity” that does not produce satisfied Christians is, at the very least, defective in some way or another. 

All this leads me to the following thesis: Authentic, healthy Christianity is a group activity—and not just an activity practiced in the context of any group, but more specifically, it is a small group activity, or at least, an activity in groups that facilitate close personal relationships and friendships. 

All this relates, at least in some respect, to the discussion about small churches and large churches. In small churches, it is harder to get lost in the shuffle. I am of the opinion, though, that it is entirely possible for large congregations, even mega-churches, to do a good job at facilitating the types of relationships that Lim and Putnam’s study indicates lead to greater satisfaction in life. But, in order to pull it off, they must be intentional and strategic about it. And dysfunctional small churches can also fumble the ball and do a poor job of creating an environment in which healthy relationships flourish. No matter the size of the church, though, it is crucial we do everything we can to see to it that no one falls through the cracks and goes through the motions of religion without the blessing of quality relationships with fellow believers. 

If we are honest, we must admit there is a tendency in American evangelical life to minimize the importance of group life. As Americans, in general, we live in a very individualistic society. More specifically, as American evangelicals, we put a big stress on such things as inviting Jesus to be our “personal Savior.” We teach the importance of having a “personal quiet time.” We preach the virtues of “personal evangelism.” 

While all of these emphases have a certain degree of validity, I believe it is important to not forget, at the same time, the biblical emphasis on community or koinonia. The Lord’s Prayer doesn’t say, “My Father, who art in heaven…” but “Our Father…” The one anothers of the New Testament are an integral part of what biblical Christianity is all about. I suppose that, at least in theory, it is possible to over-emphasize fellowship at the expense of other aspects of healthy church life, such as solid Bible teaching and discipleship. 

Actually, according to Lim and Putnam, the results of their study suggest “that congregational friendships have little effect on individuals who do not consider religion very important to their sense of self. By contrast, among individuals with strong religious identities, friendships in a congregation have a dramatic effect on life satisfaction.” In other words, at least as viewed from an evangelical Christian perspective, solid discipleship is also an important factor contributing to an overall sense of well-being in life. But a balanced package of Christian discipleship is only truly effective when it includes as integral parts the discipline of koinonia and the discipline of friendship.

The Arc

The stated or implied objective of many organizations and Christian ministries is “to change the world.” But ambitious plans for global transformation must reckon with the fundamental truth that the heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart. While certain projects and initiatives may help in one way or another to alleviate human suffering—and the aim to alleviate human suffering is not in and of itself a bad thing—any initiative that bypasses the human heart and the problem of personal sin will only be temporary and transitory. 

A careful study of church history shows that even those places in the world that have experienced seasons of revival and spiritual awakening, and along with them a modicum of moral and cultural uplift in broader society, have with time eventually returned to a deeply embedded pattern of ungodliness and in many cases surpassed pre-revival levels of societal sin. Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the Mediterranean Basin, Europe, Great Britain, North America, and to a large extent today Latin America, Africa, and Asia—each of them have had, or are having, their day in the sun, so to speak. But in spite of the many souls saved, disciples made, churches planted, and worthwhile ministry endeavors undertaken, sin still runs rampant in broader society in all these places today. 

In essence, the same crowds that shouted “Crucify him!” when Jesus was being tried by Pilate are still with us today. In the spiritual realm, the same Roman Empire that washed its hands from the crucifixion of our Lord is still with us today. The same religious authorities that wanted to protect their power base and their national pride are still with us today. Indeed, in many ways, after 2,000 years of gospel ministry, the world has not been transformed.

What are we to glean from this observation? Unitarian theologian and minister Theodore Parker penned the following words:

“I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice.” 

These same words served as an inspiration to Martin Luther King, Jr., who on several different occasions said something along the lines of, “The arc of the moral universe may be long, but it bends towards justice.” But as time moves on, is the world really becoming a better place? 

While we may well see progress here and there, I find it hard to say that the world is truly better now than it used to be at any other time in history. Thank God, chattel slavery is now deemed unconstitutional in the United States. But human trafficking still runs rampant in many places around the world, including right here at home. If reports are true, Roe v. Wade may be on the verge of being overturned by the Supreme Court. But according to recent polls, support for the freedom to choose abortion appears to be expanding, both in the States and around the world as well. In a lot of ways, as far as the moral and cultural transformation of society at large is concerned, it looks to me like the general pattern is two steps forward, three steps back.

As Christians, it is true, we may be certain that the day is coming when God’s justice will be done on earth as it is heaven. And as Christians, we are indeed called to be bold and faithful advocates for justice and goodness right here and now. But my understanding of biblical eschatology and the vision it presents for our expectations as Christians down through human history does not lead me to be overly optimistic with regard to the gradual and ultimate triumph of truth and righteousness up until the end of the age.

Jesus shared several parables that appear to speak to this question, and that may be interpreted—and have been interpreted—in different ways. Some interpreters interpret the parable of the leaven as referring to the power of the gospel to gradually transform the whole world just like leaven little by little spreads throughout a whole loaf of bread while it is baking. Others, however, have pointed out that leaven is almost always a symbol of evil or corruption in the Bible, and claim that the parable of the leaven speaks to the spread of false doctrine and corruption within historic Christendom over the centuries. In a similar way, the parable of the mustard seed is viewed by some as an illustration of the power of the gospel to accomplish great, world-changing things, even though its beginnings may be small like the mustard seed. Others point to the reference of the birds that roost in the branches of the tree that sprouts from the implanted mustard seed as another reference to the spread of evil and corruption that generally coincides with the growth of the church.

I am not dogmatic on my interpretation of either of these two parables. But my reading of the broad, underlying message of the Bible is that the gospel will indeed be proclaimed throughout all the earth, and the church will indeed be successful in its mission of making disciples of all nations. Some, however, have interpreted this discipling of all nations as transforming the cultures of all the nations of the earth or Christianizing the world. Indeed, the Greek term is literally “discipling the nations.” I think it is important to note, however, that the two activities that make up the disciple-making process—baptizing and teaching—are directed toward individuals, not structures or institutions. In other words, you don’t baptize or teach structures and institutions; you baptize and teach individuals.

All in all, I don’t think the Bible leads us to expect a Christianized world when Jesus returns. In Jesus’ day the gate was narrow and the road that led to life was hard, and there were few who found it. And as I read it, there is nothing in the Bible that leads us to expect that situation is to drastically change as time goes on.

If anything, the Bible tells us that “in the last days there will come times of difficulty” and that in that time “people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power” (2 Timothy‬ ‭3:1–5). The power of the Anti-Christ will arise in the last days. Deception will be rampant. The kings of the earth and the merchants of the earth will join in league together against the Rider on the White Horse (Revelation 18–19). And the Bible doesn’t say anything about Christian kings, Christian merchants, or Christian nations as over against “the kings of the earth” and “the merchants of the earth.” A plain reading of the text leads us to suppose that “the kings of the earth” pretty much includes all the kings of the earth.

This leads us to ask, “What about our work for the advance of the gospel? Is it all in vain, then?” 

The Bible clearly gives us the answer to this question in 1 Corinthians 15:58: “Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.” So our efforts for the progress of the gospel are not in vain. Could it be, however, that we’ve gotten a bit confused regarding our ultimate objective? I think that may indeed be the case. 

I don’t think that the Bible teaches that we are actually called to transform the world. It says, rather, that we are to preach the gospel and make disciples from among all the different nations (or people groups) of the world. And as we live out our calling, we can rest assured that some will obey the gospel, and others will choose to disobey. Revelation 7:9–10 does lead us to expect, though, that when it’s all said and done, there will be at least a remnant from every nation, tribe, people, and language who will embrace the gospel and become authentic worshipers of Jesus.

In the meantime, I believe we are called to set up outposts of the Kingdom of God among all the nations and to be light-posts of love, mercy, and righteous living in the various places we presently live as pilgrims and exiles on this earth. Indeed, our good deeds, neighborly love, and advocacy for peace and justice all will be richly rewarded in this age and in the age to come. I also believe that the principles behind the Lord’s admonition to the Judahite exiles in Babylon by way of His prophet Jeremiah apply to us as well: “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7). And as our Lord Jesus said, “Whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward” (Matthew‬ ‭10:42‬). 

So, be encouraged. Even though it may seem like truth and righteousness are not progressing in our nation and around the world as we hoped they would, God’s agenda is not failing. The establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth is on it’s way. Indeed, it is right on schedule. And as my father, Adrian Rogers, used to say, “Praise the Lord, it’s getting gloriously dark!”

Adrian Rogers & SBC21

What would my father, Adrian Rogers, say regarding SBC21?

The truth is, none of us knows for sure regarding every detail. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since he left us back in 2005, and a lot of new issues have arisen that he never had the occasion to address directly.

As his son, I had the privilege to know him up close and to speak with him at length on various occasions about matters such as theology and denominational politics. We all know that he was a champion for the authority of the Word of God. We know that he stood for integrity and righteousness. And we know that he was a key leader in the Conservative Resurgence of the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s, and that he chaired the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 Committee.

As we approach the SBC Annual Meeting in Nashville next week, a lot of controversial issues are in the air, and there has been sharp disagreement among many Southern Baptists over these issues. Ironically, from what I gather, key representatives of each of the different sides of these issues all hold my father in high esteem and regard him as a spiritual hero. Unfortunately, some of these leaders have accused those on the other side(s), despite holding to biblical inerrancy and all the other matters spelled out in the BFM 2000, of “drifting leftward” and compromising on biblical and social imperatives.

I know that my father was good friends with many of the leaders on different sides of these issues. I imagine some who read these words may well have had personal conversations with him in which he expressed his opinions on various matters related to the SBC. I was not privy to all these conversations, and I imagine some opinions were expressed in them that go beyond matters I had the opportunity to discuss with him. But I do know of one specific conversation I had with him in the summer of 2005 a few months before he passed away. 

In this conversation, he expressed to me his apprehensions about the future of the SBC. While he did not budge one inch on his convictions regarding the issues spelled out in the BFM 2000, and did not regret his role in the Conservative Resurgence, he told me that the one thing that worried him the most about the future SBC was the rising influence of a group of people he colloquially called the tire-slashers. 

The tire-slashers, according to my father, were the foot-soldiers of the Conservative Resurgence who were so enthusiastic in their support of the conservative cause that in the midst of their zeal for correct doctrine they forgot about Christian charity and treating those with whom they disagreed with decency and respect. They were those who were willing to cut ethical corners in their words and actions, all for the advance of the cause. Another name he sometimes called this same group was the Young Turks.

One of the most oft-quoted statements of my father is the following:

“I’m willing to compromise about many things, but not the Word of God. So far as getting together is concerned, we don’t have to get together. The Southern Baptist Convention, as it is, does not have to survive. I don’t have to be the pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church. I don’t have to be loved; I don’t even have to live. But I will not compromise the Word of God.”

While I am quite confident that, were he still with us today, he would say the same thing without reservation, it is important to understand the context of this statement. He by no means was minimizing the importance of Christian unity or of agreeing to disagree agreeably over secondary and tertiary doctrinal matters. By way of the BFM 2000, the BFM 2000 Committee decided to codify or “set forth” certain doctrinal distinctives that Southern Baptists believe, and at the same time they decided not to include others, thus distinguishing between denominational doctrinal essentials and non-essentials. 

Make no mistake about it, my father was not willing to compromise on any of the essentials. But he most certainly also believed in unity and charity on the non-essentials. Personally, I believe he would be heartbroken by the lack of unity and charity demonstrated by certain Southern Baptist leaders today toward those who disagree with them on non-essentials.

Nate Akin very perceptively describes here a big part of what I believe is happening in SBC life today (listen to the podcast linked below for the full context):

“There are two things I’m burdened about, and I think it’s maybe a part of the issues we’re facing. One is how driven we are by politics. So one of the things that I’ve noticed in all of these fights right now is that politics is uniting people—when you think about who’s united, it’s uniting people who have radically different soteriologies and ecclesiologies, but because they have a very similar political position. And it’s dividing others who have a similar or same soteriology and ecclesiology. And I think that is awful and I think that is sad. If anything should unite us, it should be soteriology and ecclesiology, and not politics. And yet it is uniting and dividing based upon political lines. And not even just political lines, how you view how we should be involved in politics and how you view, basically, I would say, cultural engagement, which I think is the big issue that people are missing. There’s a difference in how we think we should engage culture. And it doesn’t make one of us right or wrong. But it is kind of what’s dividing us. But when it does make it wrong is when you look at the person across the aisle who views cultural engagement different than you, and then you call them a liberal because they view it that way.”

Once again, my father is not here to speak for himself. But based upon conversations I had with him, I believe he would say amen to Nate’s words here.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/baptist-21/id1441454363?i=1000524720539

Discerning the Body: A Biblical Defense of Modified Open Communion

Who should be allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper in a Baptist church, and who should not? Some leading views advocated by Baptists are close, closed, open, and the view I personally take, modified open communion. I do not consider myself technically to be an advocate of open communion since I don’t believe the Lord’s Supper should be offered indiscriminately to anyone and everyone, nor even to all those without exception who profess to be Christians. Paul had some pretty serious words to say about taking the bread and the cup in an unworthy manner. And he relates taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner to a failure to “discern (or recognize) the body of the Lord”:

 

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. (1 Corinthians 11:27–34, NIV)­ 

*other versions translate the phrase “recognizing the body” here “discerning the body.”

 

Thus, I believe it is very important that we not participate in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner and that we encourage those who are participating with us not to participate in an unworthy manner. However, neither do I agree with the close communion position, which requires Baptist churches to only admit to the Lord’s Supper those who have been immersed in water after their profession of faith in Christ. And I do not agree with the closed communion position, which requires that Baptist churches only admit fellow members of the particular local congregation in which the Lord’s Supper is being served.

 

Lest for some reason anyone think differently, let me make perfectly clear that I do think that those who profess faith in Christ should be baptized shortly afterward and that only truly born-again people should participate in the Lord’s Supper. So I am in agreement that the normal order would be conversion, baptism, and then participation in the Lord’s Supper. However, when we think of the Lord’s Supper and who should be permitted to participate, we need to think first of all about just what it is and what we are celebrating when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. 

At the core, the Lord’s Supper is a memorial of what Jesus did for us—not of what we have done for Jesus; that is, a memorial of and witness to our salvation won by Jesus on the cross of Calvary—not a witness to our obedience to the command to be baptized, nor of our meeting the requirements for local church membership. In addition to this, the Lord’s Supper is also a celebration of the unity of the Body of Christ, the Church. Consider the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16-17:

 

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

 

The Lord’s Supper is not just a celebration of the unity of the local church. Neither is it a celebration of the unity of all of those who have their doctrine right concerning baptism. It is a celebration of the unity of the entire Body of Christ. Paul says clearly, “We, who are many, are one body”—not many different autonomous bodies. And when we don’t admit folks to the Lord’s Supper, we are in effect telling them we don’t believe they belong in the Body of Christ.

 

Among Baptists, the traditional understanding of the phrase “discerning the body” in 1 Cor. 11:29 has to do with the responsibility of taking the Lord’s Supper in a respectful manner, realizing that what we are doing at that moment is commemorating the death of our Lord Jesus and that it is a solemn occasion, not one for joking, jesting, or behaving in a flippant manner. Certainly, there is an important element of truth here. In the overall context of 1 Corinthians, however, I believe that “discerning the body” also has a very important application to our stance with regard to our fellow brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 10:16–17, Paul links the two senses of the body of Christ—physical and mystical—and it appears that in 1 Cor. 11:29 he does so again. The specific sin pointed out by Paul in 1 Corinthians in relation to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper was a sin against one’s fellow members in the Body of Christ. Notice chapter 11, verses 18–22:

 

In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

 

What was the problem at Corinth? It was primarily a problem of division within the Body of Christ. Specifically, some of the people (presumably the more wealthy) were despising those who had nothing (i.e. the poor). Essentially, what they were doing was treating certain bona fide members of the Body of Christ like second-class citizens. One chapter later, in chapter 12, Paul develops this same theme further (vv. 12–27):

 

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

 

In the context of the specific abuses of those taking part in the Lord’s Supper, Paul is pointing out a particular division: the division between the rich and the poor within the congregation at Corinth. He makes a special point to show that, whether we be slaves or free, members who are humanly speaking “less honorable” or members who are “more honorable,” we are all part of the same Body. In the overall context of 1 Corinthians, he also decries divisions based on loyalty to certain teachers—i.e. Peter, Apollos, and Paul himself—what we might call today a denominational or sectarian spirit. Whatever the cause behind it, though, Paul is saying there is nothing that should come between us as brothers and sisters in Christ if indeed we are truly members of Christ’s Body. Because of this, it is vitally important for us to know, to the degree it is possible to know this side of heaven, who is a part of Christ’s Body and who is not. And as I understand it, this is an important part of what it means to correctly discern the Body of Christ.

 

How do we discern who is truly a part of the Body of Christ and who is not? Paul in 1 Cor. 12:13 tells us how. All of us who were baptized by one Spirit and given the one Spirit to drink were baptized (by the same Spirit) into one body—that is, the very same group to whom Paul addresses the letter of 1 Corinthians when he says in chapter 1, verse 2, “To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours.”

 

Notice that for Paul the “church of God in Corinth” is one and the same with all “those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy”—that is to say, every single born-again believer in the city of Corinth. Notice, also that he does not treat them as an independent group unto themselves, but rather as a local representation, or expression, of a broader group: “all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

 

Along with most Baptist students of Scripture and church history, I agree that in the context of the NT it would have likely been very rare, if not impossible, to find individuals who had been baptized by the Spirit yet who had not yet been baptized appropriately in water. However, in the context of today, due to the tragedy of divisions and false teaching within the Body of Christ, sadly that is no longer the case. There are many paedobaptist brothers and sisters in Christ who, though mistaken (as I understand it) in their understanding and practice of water baptism, have nonetheless been baptized by the very same Spirit as we (as Baptists) have. And when we attempt to discern the Body and we notice there is not an exact correlation between the group of all those who have been appropriately baptized in water and the group of all those who have been baptized by the Spirit, we come to the conclusion that the group of those who truly comprise the Body of Christ is made up not just of those who have been baptized both by the Spirit and in water, but rather of all those who have been baptized by the Spirit.

 

Now it is true that if someone has studied out what the Bible teaches on baptism and has come to the understanding that Jesus has commanded them to be baptized in water, and yet in spite of this has not yet followed through with what they understand, then they are living in disobedience and need to get their baptism on the right side of their salvation. In such a case, we need to warn them about the danger of participating in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, which includes allowing any known, un-repented-of sin in one’s life, no matter what that sin may be. At the same time, however, an objective consideration of the reality present in Christendom today leads us to the conclusion there are many authentically born-again Christians, who are sincerely endeavoring to be obedient to Jesus in everything, including baptism, yet for one reason or another understand baptism differently than we do as Baptists and as a result have not been immersed in water subsequent to their profession of faith in Christ.

 

Some claim that maintaining a practice of close communion serves as a good opportunity to proclaim to the unbaptized their duty to be obedient to Christ’s command, causing them to reflect on the reason for their exclusion from the Lord’s table. However, while this perspective may have an element of truth to it, two wrongs do not make a right. I personally agree that it is wrong for believers not to be immersed after professing faith in Christ. And I agree that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is indeed an opportune moment to remind people of their need to be obedient to the command to be baptized. But at the same time, on the basis of my understanding of Scripture, I also believe it is wrong to deny true believers—whether they have been biblically baptized or not—access to the Lord’s Supper, which is a celebration of the unity of the entire Body of Christ, not just a part of it.

 

There are other ways to proclaim to the unbaptized their need to be baptized without at the same time despising the unity of the Body of Christ by denying them a place at the Lord’s table. The question has been raised how someone who is presiding the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in the context of a Baptist church can follow through with what I am saying here without at the same time being disloyal to the Baptist distinctive of believers baptism by immersion. However, I don't think this is necessarily a problem. The following is an example of what I have said, when I have presided the Lord’s Supper:

 

“The Bible teaches that before partaking of the bread and the wine we are to examine our hearts. I believe this includes examining ourselves to see if there is any known sin we have not confessed or for which we have not repented. Before sharing together with us in the Lord’s Supper today, I ask, and indeed urge, you to examine the condition of your own heart before the Lord. If the Holy Spirit convicts you of any sin, please make it right before Him before partaking in the Lord’s Supper. This is a very serious matter. The Word of God says that some in the congregation in Corinth had ‘fallen asleep’ (that is, they died) as a result of not taking this admonition seriously. I would also add that in our congregation we believe that Jesus commanded each believer after truly repenting of their sin and placing their faith in Christ to seal their surrender to Christ by means of believers baptism, or being immersed in water, after having been saved, in obedience to the Lord’s command. If you have not been obedient to Jesus’ command to be baptized, I urge you to not put off any longer doing so. At the same time, I am aware that there are some who have sincerely repented of their sin and placed their faith in Christ alone for their salvation and yet believe, as they have examined Scripture, that their baptism before they were saved is an authentic and biblically condoned baptism. Though in this congregation we believe and teach differently on this matter, we consider the Lord’s Supper to be a celebration of the unity of the entire Body of Christ, not just of those who agree with us on this particular matter. In any case, I urge you to carefully and prayerfully study the Scripture and examine your own heart on this matter. If you are convicted you need to be biblically baptized, don’t put it off any longer. If you before the Lord have a clear conscience about being obedient to the Lord’s command in this area, then follow before the Lord the dictates of your conscience. In any case, if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and are attempting to the best of your ability to serve and obey Him, we warmly embrace you and accept you as a fellow member of the Body of Christ.”

 

*What do you believe about who should participate in the Lord’s Supper?

 

*What is the practice in the churches in which you have been a member, and/or the churches you are aware of?

Christ the Faithful Suffering Servant in the Midst of Culture

What perspective should we as Christians take toward culture? What is the basic task to which we as Christians have been called here on Earth? How should we relate in our attitudes, actions, and priorities to the world around us? Should Christians be involved in politics? What is the ultimate goal of Christian missions? The answers to these questions are complex. And there is nothing close to unanimity among those who claim to follow Christ as to how best to answer them. Yet the repercussions are very significant and affect at a fundamental level many of the choices we make in our everyday life as Christians.

The Background of the Discussion

I am not the first to think and write about these questions. Far from it! One of the most significant and influential contributions to the ongoing discussion is H. Richard Niebuhr’s classic, Christ and Culture, published in 1951. More recently, D. A. Carson advanced the discussion with the 2008 release of Christ and Culture Revisited. As  I have mulled over these questions, I have come up with some thoughts I would like to offer for discussion.

Niebuhr, in his seminal work that has framed much of the subsequent discussion, describes five general approaches that Christians of various stripes throughout the centuries have adopted, which he calls Christ against Culture, The Christ of Culture, Christ above Culture, Christ and Culture in Paradox, and Christ the Transformer of Culture. One of the most significant observations to be gleaned from Niebuhr is that even though we are not always aware of it, each of us comes from one general perspective or another on these particular questions that colors the way we approach the specifics—and if we are able to understand the model from which one is operating, we will have significant insight into the motives behind the positions he/she takes on various issues. Rather than taking the space here to review each of these different models and potentially misrepresent or oversimplify Niebuhr’s thesis, I refer you to Niebuhr’s book itself or Carson’s review of Niebuhr’s models in his book. A briefer synopsis of Niebuhr’s thesis can be found here.

The Transformationist Model

Most (not all) Christians today would be in agreement that the first two models—Christ against Culture and The Christ of Culture—are overly extreme, one being overly reactionary and the other overly accommodating. According to Carson (and, no doubt, many others), the model favored by Niebuhr himself (though he seeks to maintain a semblance of personal detachment in his presentation), and one that has become increasingly popular among Christians of various theological and political convictions both on the Right and the Left in recent years, is the Transformationist model. The basic premise of this model is that as Christians, though we live in a fallen world in which evil exerts a great amount of influence, we are called to be salt and light, exercising a redemptive influence over the structures of this world, letting the leaven of Christian ethics and morality work its way through the lump and contributing toward the progressive and eventual Christianization of culture and society.

As I understand it, the extreme version of this model on the Right is that of the Reconstructionists/Dominionists/Theonomists, and on the Left that of Liberation Theology. However, there are many others a step or two toward the middle, both among conservatives (“Culture Warriors,” and “Seven Mountains” crusaders), as well as among more liberal versions of Christianity (some “Emerging” Christians, and even some—not all!—who would prefer the label “Missional”), who would not answer strictly speaking to either of these descriptions, yet who in their basic approach to these issues follow a Transformationist model.

The Christ the Faithful Suffering Servant in the Midst of Culture Model

Personally, as I study Scripture and reflect on what it says, I am not totally convinced by the Transformationist model. In what follows, I would like to present an alternative model that I call Christ the Faithful Suffering Servant in the Midst of Culture. Though the name itself and the description I give of this view are mine, I don’t pretend the basic ideas behind anything I say here are original. If they are truly biblical, they cannot at the same time be truly original. Besides this, various others have already articulated a view, which, though not using the exact same language, is very similar in many aspects to mine. From what I have read and listened to of Carson, for example, I would consider him to be among these.

Our Understanding of the Terms Christ and Culture

Key to a good understanding of the various perspectives one may take on Christ and Culture is the definition given to the terms Christ and culture themselves. In the model I am proposing, I take as determinative for our understanding of the term Christ the commission of Jesus to His disciples and consequently to the Church throughout the centuries in John 20:21, in which He sends them to carry out the same task with which the Father had sent Him. As the Body of Christ on Earth we are His hands, feet, eyes, and ears, continuing on through the power of the Holy Spirit the same work that He inaugurated in His first advent. We do not yet, however, represent Christ in His post-second-advent role as sovereign Ruler, which remains to be manifested at a later date.

As far as culture is concerned, I see a significant parallel between culture and what the New Testament in many passages* calls the world, encompassing the structures, thought systems, and godless values that comprise the present world order. This, however, does not preclude the appropriation and use of such cultural elements as music, art, and literature for the glory of God. For example, when we speak of Christ against Culture, we do not mean to imply that Christ is opposed to music, art, and literature, etc., in and of themselves as independent categories. These are, rather, neutral elements that may be used equally in the service of Christ and His Kingdom as well as in the propagation of the godless value system we call the world.

Called to Suffer

Having made that clear, the first aspect of the Christ the Faithful Suffering Servant in the Midst of Culture approach is the recognition that as Christians we are called to suffer here on this earth. Though there have been certain times and places down through history in which professing Christians have been more accepted and less persecuted than at other times and in other places, and there have been assorted seasons of spiritual awakening impacting the general attitude toward Christianity in a given time and place, this is not the norm, either from the standpoint of history or the Bible. At times, the advance of Christendom has, ironically, been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the persecution of authentic Christian disciples. Bible prophecy, as I understand it, does not present a view of the end-times that would lead us to expect this reality to one day disappear or gradually diminish as history progresses. It would appear that Jesus’ words describing the path that leads to life as narrow and those that find it few are just as applicable in the end-times as they were in the time He first pronounced them.

Called to Rescue the Perishing

The next aspect of this approach is the call to “seek and to save those which are lost,” rescuing them from the cruel dominion of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and calling them to come out and be separate from the ungodly structures and systems of the world, symbolically depicted in Revelation 16–19 as Babylon the Great. However, those who are rescued are not rescued solely for an existence of eternal bliss in the fully consummated Kingdom of God in the age to come. They are also called to live this present life as signposts of the coming Kingdom as members of an alternative community in which they grow together in faith, hope, and love, continually experiencing spiritual healing and ministering it one to another in the therapeutic community that is the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Called to Serve

Closely related to the call to “rescue the perishing” is the call to serve. It is at this juncture that the Christ the Faithful Suffering Servant model departs significantly from the Christ against Culture model. While it is true that culture, inasmuch as we equate it with the structures and systems of this world, will almost always set itself up in opposition to uncompromising Christian discipleship, the calling and purpose of Christians in this present dispensation is not to condemn those who are presently subject to this world but rather to lead them to salvation through faith in Christ, who came to “give his life as a ransom for many.” As those sent out by Jesus, in the same way as He Himself was sent by the Father, we identify with His call “not to be served, but to serve” and to direct this service to the very ones among whom we are to live as candles in the midst of the darkness.

In the Midst of Culture

As the old saying goes, and as Jesus makes clear in John 14:14–18, we are called to be in the world but not of the world:

I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.

As faithful suffering servants, we do not isolate ourselves from the world around us and from the dire condition of those who groan under the oppression of its cruel taskmasters. We are not passive quietists living our own lives and minding our own business, separated from those we are seeking to rescue. No! The love of Christ constrains us to actively and enthusiastically pour ourselves out in acts of service and practical kindness, following the example of our Lord, who healed the sick, set the captives free, and graciously showered His love upon them during His first advent here on Earth.

Called to Be Faithful

As faithful suffering servants, we also patiently wait for the consummation of the Kingdom in the day when our Lord returns to judge the wicked and the just and establish His visible rule over all the cultures and structures of this earth. In the meantime, we refrain from seeking to forcibly introduce the Kingdom of God with its ultimate implications ahead of time, cognizant of the fact that on those occasions when Christians have sought to exercise dominion over the structures of this world independent of the physical presence of Jesus Himself to take charge and rule the nations with an iron rod of justice, the end result has more often than not proven disastrous for the true advance of kingdom values.

None of this means that in the meantime we refrain in any way from actively rescuing the perishing, diligently working toward the edification of the community of the redeemed, and passionately serving the needy and oppressed in our midst to the very best of our ability, with the strength and wisdom the Holy Spirit gives us. Indeed, we seek to be the most faithful stewards we possibly can, knowing the way we live our lives here on Earth will have momentous consequences for eternity.

*See, for example, Matthew 4:8; Luke 12:30; John 8:23, 12:31, 15:18, 16:33, 17:6–19, 18:36; Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 2:12, 11:32; 2 Corinthians 10:1–6; Galatians 4:3, 6:14; Ephesians 2:2, 6:12; Colossians 2:8, 20; James 1:27, 4:4; 2 Peter 1:4, 2:20; 1 John 2:15–17; 3:1, 13; 4:1–6; 5:4–5, 19.