Faith in the Public Square

In the nineteenth century with the rise of academic fields that included religious studies, Christianity was placed into the category of “religions” and the teachings of Jesus were lumped together with other religions and worldviews. Thus, Christianity soon had several strange bedfellows, so to speak, as it was compared with other systems of human thought and belief such as Buddhism (which did not require a personal God) and animism (that viewed spirits in nearly every created thing). These systems of thought (whether religious or not) shared very little in common, and in some points contradict each other. For those who promoted the broad (and often “forced”) field of religious studies or comparative religions, Christianity was stripped from its historical setting of the first-century Roman Empire. The historical events of Jesus of Nazareth’s crucifixion and resurrection were explained away as myths, and Christianity was reduced to the level of moral and ethical values. What remained were phrases like Jesus’s words known as the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Matt. 7:12). Anything described as supernatural was dismissed out of hand. The shift from history to values moved Christianity from the realm of historic event and public truth to subjective experience and private values. Christianity was considered simply an option among many equally valid options of belief, morality, and ethics. With all religions or worldviews placed into a single category of subjective private values (religious studies), there also came an emphasis to keep one’s values or religious beliefs private—to keep your religious views to yourself.

However, the problem with the category of “religious studies” (spoken by someone who has taught in religious studies departments in a liberal arts college and a major university) is that religion scholars have tried to find what various religious and quasi-religious traditions share in common (and in many cases they share little or nothing in common). Nevertheless, in an effort to show what they have in common, the particulars or particularities of each religion are minimized.  To make all religions the same at the core, is to make none of them true to themselves because each is different, and often incompatible with the others. For example, to conclude that Islam and Christianity are “basically the same,” is to deny the particular uniqueness of each. One must jettison the five pillars of Islam (disagreeing with the local imam) and one must jettison the gospel of Jesus’s death, burial, resurrection, and forgiveness of sins through him. Not only Christianity, but other faith traditions have adamantly refused to be lumped together into a single category of “religion.” 

In his analysis of this topic, Christian thinker and missionary Lesslie Newbigin claimed that Christianity cannot be reduced to the category of private, subjective values. The birth, life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth occurred in history. Its significance is not only historical but it public; it has meaning for all human beings. Newbigin argued that because Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in Jerusalem publicly for all to see—in sight of his friends, family, public officials, and enemies—that his story is not private but public, and thereby public truth.  When Jesus was crucified, a sign was nailed to the cross over his head with the inscription, THE KING OF THE JEWS. It was written in three languages—in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew—so that all the public knew the reason for his public execution—his claim to be the Messiah of Israel, the anointed Son of King David (2 Sam. 7:15-16). Jesus’s crucifixion was a public and historical event. His death is public knowledge, a message for all people, not reserved for the private domain but for the public square. For this reason, the apostle Paul, for example, brought this message to the Agora in Athens. Literally, the story of Jesus was spoken and discussed in the city’s central public space, the public square (Acts 17:17).

Moreover, Jesus intended that his message be declared publicly. His message of reconciliation was something to be broadcast by his disciples. Early on in his ministry, Jesus said to his disciples, which we read in Matthew 5:13: “You are the salt of the earth,” and in the following verse: “You are the light of the world.” Both of these metaphors were used by Jesus of Nazareth to describe his disciples, illustrating their role in the wider population—among the public. The metaphor of salt carried the idea that his followers would have a preserving effect as they lived by Jesus’ kingdom ethics. The metaphor of light carried the idea that his followers, like him, would bring light or illumination to a sin-darkened world, and that their light in turn would point to him as the true light who came into the world (John 1:9). The result would be to glorify God. In Matthew 5:16, we read, “In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” Notice the pattern: “You are the light of the world.”  “Let your light shine before others.” Their identity came first, then their actions—their good deeds—and this would glorify God.

          So we see that in Jesus’s words to his disciples, he made statements about them—about their new identity. He said, “You are the salt of the earth” and “You are the light of the world.” Before he gave them any assignments, he said to them: “You are!” Then, he moved to what they would do … and this would be public; they would let their light shine before others—they exhibit an influence on others through their words, as “salt that savors” (Col. 4:6) and as “light that illuminates,” which others would see. This would not be private or hidden. In Matthew 5:15, Jesus said, “Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.” The identity of Jesus’s disciples—as the light of the world—would be displayed for others to see. 

           Matthew 5 is not the only place in the Bible where Jesus speaks of his disciples’ identity.  In Luke 24:46, Jesus told his disciples, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses … of these things.”

          Listen again to what Jesus says, “You are witnesses of these things.”  In this text (known as Luke’s Great Commission text) there is no command, no mandate, not any imperative but an indicative statement of identity. It is like the declarative statements “You are the salt of the earth” and “You are the light of the world,” In this text in Luke 24, Jesus says, “You are witnesses of these things.” They were witnesses of Jesus. He was the Messiah who suffered. He was the Christ who resurrected from the dead on the third day, and they were witnesses to these things and to his message of forgiveness of sins.  For us too, we are witnesses “of these things.”  As witnesses, we testify publicly of what Jesus has done in history and in our own lives. We bear witness to him in the public square.

          In addition to these three metaphors of our identity, the Bible has several other metaphors that describe our identity—who we are. In 1 Peter 2:9, we read: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” Okay, let’s make this simple, and look just at the metaphor of “royal priesthood.” If Jesus’s followers are a royal priesthood, then we are priests.  What is a priest? A priest is a mediator between human beings and God. A priest’s role is two-directional. A priest represents people to God and represents God to people. We are mediators. We represent people to God when we pray for them—this is called intercessory prayer. We represent God to people when we speak to them about him. Notice that in this text, Peter begins by saying who we are—a royal priesthood—and then he says “that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” Because of what he says about us (a royal priesthood), we can then actually carry it out our mediatorial task. We testify about what he has done. We tell about how we have been called us out of darkness and have entered into his kingdom of light. There’s nothing here about keeping our faith private. No, we testify or bear witness to God’s work in our lives. Just like a witness who is called into a court of law to testify before others, we tell our stories publicly. But this telling begins with who we are.  We are priests; mediators between the triune God and the people we meet every day; we are mediators of those who live in spiritual darkness.

Another passage that makes our identity explicit is 2 Corinthians 5:14-19. We read in verse 14: “For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.” I simply want to point out here that Paul says, “Christ’s love compels us.” Paul was compelled, as we will see, to share the gospel with others, because Christ died for us. He continues in verse 16: “So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” Paul speaks of a new state or status of being “in Christ” which stands in contrast simply to being “in Adam.” To be “in Adam” is to be part of the original creation through our natural birth. But to be “in Christ” is to be part of new creation, a new humanity. “In Adam” we have natural life, but we also feel the weight and pull of own self-centeredness or self-orientation, or what the Bible calls sin. But “in Christ” we regain spiritual life with God, and experience the forgiveness of sin because Christ took our sin upon himself.

 Then in 2 Cor. 5:18, we read: “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.” There is a lot packed into this verse. We also see another metaphor of our identity: we are messengers of reconciliation. If you are a follower of Jesus, you are a messenger of reconciliation.  And when did you become a messenger of reconciliation? You became a messenger of reconciliation when you became a new creation, through spiritual birth “in Christ.” But you might say, “I haven’t yet communicated this message of reconciliation.”  Well, you are not a messenger of reconciliation because you share the message of reconciliation; you are a messenger of reconciliation because you are a new creation in Christ. Look again at verse 18, “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation.” It seems that Paul doesn’t take a breath between these to statements joined with the conjunction “and.” God reconciles us to himself through Christ … and gives us the ministry of reconciliation. Period. He entrusts or deposits with us the message of reconciliation. This is who you are! This is your identity!

This word, ‘reconciliation’ refers to a “coming together” of two people after they have argued or after they have been estranged from one another. Our self-centeredness often leads us to betray one another, and it leads us to betray God. It doesn’t take much for us to betray God either and to sin against him. Any thought or action contrary to God’s good and perfect will is sin. The problem is that just like our estrangement from others when we argue wanting our own way, our thoughts, words, and acts that are contrary to God lead us apart.  We are in need of reconciliation. This is the bad news, so to speak.  But the good news is that God has provided the means of our reconciliation with him—and it is through Jesus Christ. Through Christ our relationship with God is restored. We are reconciled when we accept by faith what God has done through Jesus Christ and his death upon the cross. And in the moment, we go from people who are estranged from God, to becoming reconciled to him, and made messengers of reconciliation.

Moreover, Paul has another way of saying this, and so he introduces another metaphor.  In 2 Corinthians 5:20, he says, “We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.” Christ followers are his ambassadors. They represent the Christ who is the King and they represent his kingdom. Ambassadors are appointed by the king, and then they act on behalf of the king, with his leadership and authority. There is nothing private about an ambassador. An ambassador engages the public, the people, on behalf of the king and his kingdom.  As Christ’s ambassadors, we speak for the king. As for authority, Jesus said to his disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18). After he said this to them, he delegated the task of making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:19)—of all the peoples of the earth.

When I was a student in college, a professor who had served in the U. S. Army said that delegation of responsibility must always come with the delegation of authority. One needs authority to carry out the delegated task. Think of this: Jesus has given us a task to make disciples of all peoples, and we go with his authority. We, as Christ’s ambassadors have been delegated responsibility with the authority of the King to carry it out. We are ambassadors! And who we are and what we are created for “in Christ” leads to what we do.

Think about this: It is not what we do as Christ-followers that determines who we are but it is who we are, in Christ, that determines what we do.

Our identify and position with the King—King Jesus—works out in our lives as kingdom heirs which leads to kingdom witness. It leads to public witness in the public square.

You are the salt of the earth,” “You are the light of the world. Jesus said, “A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.” Jesus calls us witnesses. He said, “The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.  You are witnesses of these things.” You are royal priests. We have been a royal priesthood so that we may declare the praises of him who called us out of darkness into his wonderful light. You are messengers of reconciliation. God reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation and the message of reconciliation. And finally, you are Christ’s ambassador. You are his sent with his authority to speak for him wherever you are.

This week, I would like to ask you, in response to this message, to think about this: It is not what you do as Christ-followers that determines who you are but it is who you are in Christ that determines what you do. The life of a Christ-follower begins with who we are “in Christ,” not what we do. What we do follows who we are as new creations “in Christ.”

Let me encourage you to speak about your faith publicly.  I practice a principle that I call “lean in, lean out.” We practice gospel intentionality when we “lean in.” We speak with others to take the conversation in a certain direction—toward our own faith in Christ or the gospel itself. This is the “lean in.”  However, we practice gospel intentionality with respect for those we talk with. The apostle Peter said to speak about our faith (to give an answer about our faith) with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). This is how we “lean out.” For example we say, “Joe, sometime I would like to hear your story and how faith intersects with your life,” [lean in], “but it’s cool too if you’d like to take a pass. No problem.”  [lean out]

Finally, this week, in light of the metaphors that we examined today, I would like you to ask yourself, which of these metaphors gives you the most confidence to share the good news of Jesus with others? With others at work, in your neighborhood, or at the gym or coffee shop, and how will you live out that metaphor this week by your words and deeds?

May this week we consider how we can live out our identity in Christ and speak about our faith in the public square. Amen.

Three Cases of Christians on the Critical Theory Train

We know institutions like InterVarsity Press, Christianity Today, Urbana Conference, and Fuller Theological Seminary as evangelical institutions. That is why I was surprised to learn of their close ties to three Christians who espouse post-modernist, cultural-Marxist ideas, if not, ideology. These Christians use critical theory not merely as an analytical tool to understand matters of social justice but as a means of change, having a vision toward a particular telos or goal. Who are the three Christians?

The first is Christena Cleveland. She has been an Urbana Conference speaker, contributor to Christianity Today, published with IVP, and professor at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, before taking a position at Duke.[1] Last summer at Cambridge University, I attended the Newbigin Summer Institute and Cleveland was a plenary speaker. The theme of the conference was justice and Newbigin’s view in particular. In a rather awkward situation for many conferees, Cleveland took the opportunity to identify Newbigin as a colonialist oppressor, following both post-colonial and critical race theories, stemming from the fact he was a white missionary bishop in India. It was evident to most (not all) in attendance that she did not know Newbigin very well but presented him in the light of her pre-agenda which prompted a bit of heckling from a few listeners in the audience.

Cleveland taught at Bethel University as the Reconciliation Studies Professor. Her classes were filled with a number of white female students from the upper Midwest who she would lecture (illustrated condescendingly) about their white privilege. She also caused a stir with Bethel’s initial discussion of BLM that follows CRT, in contrast to the biblical vision of justice and reconciliation.[2]

At the Urbana Conference in 2015, Cleveland spoke about “The Priesthood of the Privileged” with the description that read: “All people should have an equal seat at the bountiful table of God. But in our world some people have more access to resources than others.”[3] She also authored The Priesthood of the Privileged that “examines power and inequality in the Church." Moreover, she contributed articles to Christianity Today.[4]

When I heard her speak at Cambridge, I learned that she had just left Duke Divinity School after accusing the school of racism. In a scathing letter she wrote: “When I joined the faculty in 2015, I was excited and hopeful that DDS would be an enriching environment in which to continue my work on theology and justice. On the contrary, I encountered an ongoing and insidious legacy of anti-Black racism that produces an environment that is insufferably hostile to Black people. Hence my resignation.”[5]

Christena Cleveland now leads the Center for Justice and Renewal.[6] Recently, she responded to InterVarsity Christian Fellowship’s policy on gay marriage. In a tweet, she said: "I'm so tired of evangelical orgs further marginalizing ppl who are already marginalized by society. It’s the opposite of the Jesus way.” Cleveland makes claims about “Jesus’ way” while shaped, perhaps, more by post-modernist, critical theorist views of marginalized and oppressed groups (LGBTQ) than the teachings of the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. This is not to suggest that there are not cases of biblical injustice toward the LGBTQ community. She simply advocates for intersectionality and moral authority rooted in the epistemological standpoint of those within an oppressed social location.

Since Cleveland left Duke, she has written a new book titled Christ Our Black Mother Speaks. In the preface she says: “Our conditioning has taught us to automatically perceive femininity as untrustworthy and blackness as dirty. So, black femininity is perceived as wholly unholy. There’s something very evil about the way black women in particular are perceived as distant from the Divine. It brings to mind the Jezebel stereotype, the idea that black women are lascivious by nature, which has long plagued black women… [and] continues to thrive today… In this volume of essays, I turn toward images of Christ on the cross. As I continue my exploration of the wholly holy female face of God, I ask a deeper question. What does God’s femaleness and blackness practically mean for my particular black female experience?  And what does God’s femaleness and blackness practically mean for all of us?”[7]

The second Christian to follow the ideas of critical theory is Willie Jennings. He contributed a chapter to the volume Can White People Be Saved? published by IVP, edited by Love L. Sechrest, Johnny Ramirez-Johnson, and Amos Young.[8] Jennings delivered a lecture by this title at Fuller Theological Seminary.[9] After the lecture, Mark Labberton, President of Fuller, responded positively to the message, affirming what would become the future direction of Fuller. Curious about what I heard after viewing the lecture I ordered the book. It sat on my shelf until this summer when the marches and riots tied with BLM continued, along with the popularity of books and podcasts on “whiteness,” “white privilege,” and “white fragility.”

I read Jenning’s chapter closely. I provide below some excerpts and brief comments. I found the chapter rooted almost entirely in post-colonial theory, with a sprinkling of a Bible verses. Jennings says, “No one is born white. There is no white biology, but whiteness is real. Whiteness is a working, a forming toward a maturity that destroys. Whiteness is an invitation to a form of agency and subjectivity that imagines life progressing toward what is in fact a diseased understanding of maturity, a maturity that invites us to evaluate the entire world by how far along it is toward this goal.” (p. 34) 

While Jennings’s description of “whiteness” is extremely subjective, he concludes that it leads to destruction.

 As mentioned, Jennings quotes a few Bible verses (1 Cor. 7:23, p. 35; Eph. 2:19, p. 36; Phil. 2:12-13, p. 38.) In each case, he does not offer an exposition of the texts and develop his case from them. Rather, he quotes the verses and continues with a New World/Americas colonial/ post-colonial narrative. I had hoped for some integration of thought with the Scriptures. I was disappointed with his “sugar-coating.”

Jennings describes nationalism, saying “Nationalism was ownership, property ownership made plural and made the universal right of a people to their space. Yes, there was attachment to the land; yes, there was blood bound to soil; and yes, there was deep sentiment and sensibilities born of living in a land, but this was different. This was owning the land, not being owned by the land. This was speaking for the land as one who controls it, not having land and animal speak through you, as though you extended their lives through your life. Nationalism places people inside borders, and borders inside people; place-centered identity removes the borders between people and the actual world and points to the artificiality of all borders. Yet few people see the artificiality of borders because the transformation toward citizens has distorted our view of the world. It creates a sense of sovereignty that Christian conversion has been forced to serve. Conversion to faith has been brought inside the cultivating work of turning immigrants into citizens. Christianity indeed makes good citizens.”  (p. 37-38)

While admittedly difficult to understand all Jennings is saying, he identifies with pre-colonial indigenous peoples of the Americas, even defending their animism, it seems. It is the “whiteness” of colonialism that embodies Christianity. When I read this, I immediately questioned his understanding of nations and property that appears in ancient civilizations. Of course, his context is Western colonial/ post-colonial Americas but he seems to have little understanding of, or appreciation, for example, of the Greco-Roman world. Why begin with los reyes catolicos Isabella and Ferdinand [my words, not his] and not God’s promise to Abraham of a nation and land, or Alexander the Great’s advance, or slavery within the Roman Empire? It does not fit the narrative of post-colonial theory.

Under the heading “The Feeling of Whiteness” (p. 40), Jennings writes: “Whiteness feels normal and natural. It feels normal and natural because it is woven into how we imagine moving toward maturity. Whiteness feels. It has an affective structure. So, like extremely comfortable clothing that moves with the body, whiteness becomes what Anne Anlin Cheng calls a second skin. Whiteness is being questioned at this moment like never before, and it feels terrible to so many people. We have to talk about whiteness in relation to affect and feeling because how whiteness feels is how whiteness thinks. Agency and subjectivity form in how we feel and think as one single reality of personhood.” (pp. 40-41).

Obviously, whiteness is highly subjective, as Jennings admits. This fits well with post-modernist, post-rationalist thought. Epistemology is rooted in feelings.

The final section of the essay offers more concrete ideas. Jennings says, “Whiteness comes to rest in space. The maturity whiteness aims at always forms segregated places. … It constructs bordered life, life lived in separate endeavors of wish fulfillment.” (p. 43).  His says whiteness segregates. He continues: “We fight against the segregation that shapes our worlds, and we work to weave lives together… Indeed, this is what Christian mission at its best was always aiming at—following Jesus into new places to form new life, life together.” Here he claims Christianly that Jesus integrates. However, Jennings fails to connect conversion to Christ or any theological vision for that matter to this conclusion. He ends by saying: “I want to turn us from a formation that is yet compelling people to aim their lives toward a vision of maturity that is bound in death. I want to save us from becoming or being White people.” (p. 43)  In other words, you wants us to abandon whiteness. The solution is to leave “the life progressing toward what is in fact a diseased understanding of maturity.”

This essay is a case of the tail wagging the dog. It is essentially post-colonial theory (within critical theory) examining “whiteness”—a feeling—as colonial power with a few “prooftexts” plopped in. Theologically, the essay offers no direct tie to the gospel’s power to transform people, or to critique colonial Christendom. It is strange that Jennings ties conversion to whiteness but calls for Jesus to transform. The essay lacks logical coherence.

The third Christian to follow the ideas of critical theory is Angela Parker.  She was a plenary speaker at the Liberating Evangelism Conference in 2019, in Chicago. The event was sponsored by InterVarsity Press, North Park Theological Seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary, Evangelicals for Social Action, etc. The plenary speakers most recognized by me were Soong-Chan Rah and Sandra Van Opstal.[10]

I became aware of Angela Parker when watching an interview with Neil Shenvi.[11] He quoted a tweet from the Liberating Evangelicalism Conference in which Angela Parker said, “Inerrancy and infallibility are orthodoxies of white supremacist thought."[12]

 Her short bio for the conference says: “Rev. Dr. Angela N. Parker has a Ph.D. in Bible, Culture, and Hermeneutics (New Testament focus) from Chicago Theological Seminary. Dr. Parker’s book entitled Bodies, Violence, and Emotions: A Womanist Study of the Gospel of Mark is currently under contract with Wipf & Stock. Reading through the lens of womanist and postcolonial thought, Dr. Parker’s work addresses the issue of bodies falling as a result of imperial violence in the Gospel of Mark. The issue of fallen bodies is especially important for contemporary Christian communities who witness police violence against black and brown bodies.”

One has only to read other speakers’ bios to see the obvious influence of critical theories including queer theory, race theory, post-colonial theory, and feminist theory. For example, Myles Markam, a plenary speaker is a “trans person of faith with mixed-Asian American/Native Hawai’ian ancestry.”

Concluding Thoughts

The liberating (de-colonizing) evangelicalism movement is very real and maintains ties with historic evangelicalism. While one may learn from post-colonial theory, CRT, and even queer theory as methods of analysis, many today who apply these theories have an agenda driven by cultural-Marxist ideology and postmodernist epistemology (tribal truth) to deconstruct historic evangelicalism. This cuts at the root of historic evangelicalism with statements like Parker’s line: “Inerrancy and infallibility are orthodoxies of white supremacist thought.” Of course, white supremacist is not simply overt but covert—the type that permeates all of Western society. 

The need of the hour is for Christians to lay open the differences between the sources, means, and ends (telos) of critical theory and biblical Christianity. A side-by-side contrast can awaken Christians to the differences. While Christians are familiar with the biblical and theological basis of God’s justice and reconciliation in Christ, and even ways that sin is systematized in society, they are ignorant of the critique of the popular social movement of social justice and critical theory’s pernicious influence.

---

[1] Christena Cleveland, Disunity in Christ: Uncovering the Hidden Forces that Keep Us Apart (Downers Grove: IVP: 2013).

[2] https://bethelclarion.com/2015/04/07/do-blacklivesmatter-at-bethel/

[3] https://urbana.org/bio/christena-cleveland

[4] https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/opinion/columnists/truth-be-told/

[5] https://relevantmagazine.com/culture/christena-cleveland-resigns-from-duke-divinity-school-in-scathing-open-letter/

[6] https://www.justiceandrenewal.org/

[7] https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/christ-our-black-mother-speaks-digital-pdf/

[8] Willie James Jennings, “Can White People Be Saved?” in Can White People Be Saved? Triangulating Race, Theology and Mission, edited by Love L. Sechrest, Johnny Ramirez-Johnson, and Amos Young, IVP, 2018.

[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wRvaG9j53g

[10] http://liberatingevangelicalism.org/speakers/

[11] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcnAD6NrBAw

[12] Tweet Brock Bahler @brockbahler · Sep 20, 2019 “Inerrancy and infallibility are orthodoxies of white supremacist thought”—Angela Parker https://twitter.com/brockbahler/status/1175086027880443904

 

David Nasmith (1799-1838) and Missional Ecclesiolgy

David Nasmith of Glasgow, Scotland (1799-1838), along with friends, founded over sixty Christian societies.[1] He began life in manufacturing as an apprentice. Yet, he hoped to become a foreign missionary and at times applied to go to Africa and the South Seas but was turned down because of his lack of education. Instead, he became the “Apostle of City Missions.” His evangelistic zeal was channeled first through outlets in Glasgow where he devoted his time to evangelism and charitable work which included visiting prisons. He once spent a whole night in a prison cell with two men who were to be executed the following day.

At age fifteen, Nasmith and some of his friends founded three youth societies to support foreign missions, tract distribution, and the Bible Society. In 1821, he became secretary of the Religious Societies of Glasgow. In 1824 he founded the Young Men’s Society for Religious Improvement.

In 1826, Nasmith founded the Glasgow City Mission which took Chalmers’s pattern of district outreach further. Chalmers' experiment in St. John’s, Glasgow, published in The Christian and Civic Economy of Large Towns (1821–26), provided a model of urban mission based on lay visitation.[2] Thomas Chalmers (1780-1843) had advocated “district visitation” for evangelism and Sunday school at the time when the Industrial Revolution was leading to a rapid urbanization of Scottish society.[3]

Nasmith made the work inter-denominational by enlisting the support and involvement of all evangelical churches, and aiming to encourage the unchurched to attend an evangelical church and recruited laypeople fulltime instead of using volunteers to carry out the evangelistic work.[4] Not only were the paid workers more dependable but several came from the working class and were better-equipped to minister to the city’s poor.

When Nasmith founded Glasgow City Mission, the objective of the society was “to promote the spiritual welfare of the poor of this city, and its neighbourhood, by employing persons of approved piety, and who are properly qualified to visit the poor in their houses.”[5] At the society’s first annual meeting, the message to the missionaries was: “You will convert the houses that [are] tenanted by men of the foulest passions, into churches of the Redeemer, where the Lord the Spirit will dwell and the God of Salvation will be loved and served. You will arrest the progress of vice and promote the interest of virtue. You will make our poor, our ignorant, our degraded population stand forth in all that freshness and fairness of moral and of spiritual excellence.”[6]

Besides the Glasgow City Mission, Nasmith founded the Edinburgh City Mission in 1832, and the London City Mission in 1835.[7] With his vision for city missions, he toured Scotland, Ireland, the United States, Canada, and France, addressing local church leaders and encouraging them to form city missions and other societies.[8]

In this period of denominational rivalry, even among evangelicals, the London City Mission was founded in 1835 as an interdenominational organization. Nevertheless, it had a shaky start. While its committee was drawn from eight denominations, some people in the Church of England were suspicious, and even hostile toward the society. Therefore, Nasmith stayed on as secretary for over a year to smooth over any suspicions or feelings of rivalry.

Nasmith clearly possessed a remarkable ability to organize mission work. A. G. Callant said, “As a founder of missions, it would be hard to find his equal.”[9] However, Nasmith was not simply keen at founding mission societies. In one occasion he stated his conviction that “every church shall be a missionary body, and every member a missionary.”[10] He called churches to awaken from their slumber in order to evangelize their neighborhoods.

At the founding of the Manchester City Mission in 1837, Nasmith said: “If we expected the poor to flood to our churches, we were greatly mistaken, and if we wanted our places of worship to be crowded, we must carry the Gospel to the homes of the poor.”[11] Moreover, the object of this mission was “not to make people Protestants or Roman Catholics, Baptist, Episcopalians, Methodists or any other sect,” but “to unite all denominations of Christians, and by one strong effort, to pluck sinners as brands from the burning.”[12]

Besides the city missions, Nasmith helped to train Sunday school teachers in the United Kingdom, and in New York and Philadelphia. He died at the age of forty in Guildford, Surrey, England. He was not merely credited, however, with founding city missions but also the young men’s Christian societies that came into an association of the YMCA under George Williams.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from: John Campbell, Memoirs of David Nasmith: His Labours and Travels in Great Britain, France, the United States and Canada (London: J. Snow, 1844).

David [Nasmith] was the means of promoting inquiry into the spiritual condition of the city population on the part of many who had never previously thought a moment on the subject. The zeal of some sentimental people promised, at first, to take a practical turn. “Some of the Lord’s people here [in Ireland],” says David, “are speaking of forming a mission church with a pastor, teachers and evangelists; whose object it shall be, not only to edify those who may be associated in church fellowship, but to go forth and preach the gospel and plant churches in the cities, towns, and villages of Ireland, considering that every church is a missionary body. If this is of the Lord, it will prosper; if not, may it come to nought. Christ Jesus to be the bond of union, and not Presbyterianism, Independency, or Episcopacy. A union of saints is exceedingly desirable into one church of Christ, and a striving together for the advancement of the glory of God, and not our own opinion.” … David plainly states that his missions were merely an artificial substitute for the churches of Christ, which are the natural missionary societies, the proper instruments for diffusing the Gospel, both at home and abroad. In a letter, about the same time, written to Mrs. Connell, the valued relative of Mrs. Nasmith, David reverts to this important principle. “I long,” says he, “for the period, when the churches of Christ, instead of these voluntary associations, formed for this purpose, shall become missionary bodies. There is a considerable shaking in that respect, in this place, not amongst the churches, but amongst individuals, as to the duty of churches. A church was formed yesterday week, of which Mr. Pope is pastor, upon such a basis I mean, upon Scripture principles; but the principle that every member is, in his or her sphere, to become a missionary. Stir up your Christian friends to think of this!”[13] …

“These societies are of two classes, the natural and the artificial; the former Christian Churches, and the latter voluntary associations of Christian men. In the order of nature, conventional movements are first, and absolutely necessary. There is no other means of operation in a district of country, or in a locality of a town or city, where churches do not exist, or do not exist in number and strength sufficient to act congregationally upon the population around them. But these are only temporary expedients, which must ultimately give place to measures based on other principles. In proportion as churches come to exist in numbers and means adequate to the work of evangelizing their vicinities, the necessity for artificial combinations will gradually subside, and may at length be safely dispensed with. In them the Spirit of God resides; through them, as the principal means, he will subdue the world, and complete the conquests of the Head of the Heathen. Every church, like the glorious gospel, of which it is the depository, may be likened unto fire and leaven, which operate by assimilating to themselves their kindred elements, when such elements are brought into contact. Churches ought, at all points, to act on surrounding unbelievers, and at once to absorb the faithful into their several fellowships ; or, to change the figure, the armies of the cross, like other armies, require their advanced guards, their spies, and pioneers, such as missionaries, itinerants, and other classes of labourers; but the conquests of that cross are to be completed, its authority and government established, and its empire upheld, by its own organized masses that is, by Gospel Churches.”[14]

---

[1] John Campbell, Memoirs of David Nasmith: His Labours and Travels in Great Britain, France, the United States and Canada (London: J. Snow, 1844).

[2] D. W. Bebbington, "Missions at home" in M. Lynch, ed., The Oxford Companion to Scottish History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 422–3.

[3] C. G. Brown, Religion and Society in Scotland Since 1707 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997), 97, 102-4.

[4] Bebbington, "Missions at home," 422–3.

[5] Delores Burger, Practical Religion: David Nasmith and the City Mission Movement, 1799 – 2000, 27.

[6] Burger, Practical Religion, 28.

[7] A. G. Callant, Saint Mungo’s Bells; or Old Glasgow Stories Rung Out Anew (David Bryce & Son, 1888).

[8] Brown, Religion and Society in Scotland, 103.

[9] Phyllis Thompson, To the Heart of the City (Hodder & Stoughton, 1985).

[10] Nasmith, 215-216; Cf. Scharpff, History of Evangelism, 94.

[11] Manchester Guardian, May 3rd, 1837, in Burger, Practical Religion: David Nasmith, 46.

[12] Manchester Guardian, May 3rd, 1837, in Burger, Practical Religion: David Nasmith, 46.

[13] Campbell, Nasmith, 188-189; 190-191.

[14] Campbell, Nasmith, 449-450.

God's Human Drama

Below is a presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ that is set within the Bible's grand story. It is called God's Human Drama. The drawing is sketched out when each section is explained. This presentation is designed to be "simplex," simple for people to understand but expandable when further explanation is necessary.

Bill, what comes to your mind when you turn on the news these days? …  Have you ever noticed how new programs begin with the worst in humans and end with the best? Why do you think people are wonderful and awful at the same time? … The Christian world-view in the Bible gives an answer. Can I show you on a piece of paper something called God’s Human Drama? It takes about twenty minutes to draw and explain. Do you think I can sketch the whole story of the Bible on a single sheet of paper? … Well, let me give it a try.

Sigmund Freud described humans as ego-centric (self-centered) creatures, something that the Bible said for centuries. This self-orientation has caused humans to betray one another and the Creator God. Our self-centeredness manifests in our actions that separate us from each other and God. In other words, things become “about us” rather than about loving others and loving God. The result is that our world is fractured by human betrayal. Have you ever been betrayed by someone? Felt abandoned? Disappointed in what others did or said? Me too! … Pretty awful feeling, huh? …

In the Bible’s grand story, this betrayal and separation led to death too; brother killing brother. In addition to murder came things like: jealousy, greed, bullying, oppression, racism, terrorism, and abuse. Pretty awful, huh? … But when it comes down to it, we’re all self-centered, even the most generous of us. This self-centered way of living causes separation between us and God—the death of a relationship.

Of course, this was not the way God intended things to be. Originally God designed us and all creation as good and pure—as wonderful. There was no pain, no death, no betrayal, no poverty, no corruption. Sounds like a great world, right? … This was a world of life and blessing! We were created in God’s image to reflect his pure and loving nature. In fact, this story began with humans living in harmony with God in his beautifully created world. Everything was wonderful until humans betrayed God and one another. At that moment human sin, evil, disharmony, and brokenness entered the story. But God did not give up on us. What did he do? He launched a plan to restore human beings. He didn’t leave us in our awful condition.

In this world of human rebels, God chose a man named Abraham to become a father of many people. God promised Abraham that through him and his offspring (Abraham's clan) all the peoples of the world would be blessed. What a promise! God followed through on this promise but sadly Abraham and his clan did not. They kept betraying God and other human beings and ended up living as slaves in Egypt.

One of Abraham's descendants was Moses, a type of redeemer who rescued Abraham’s clan out of slavery under the oppressor named Pharaoh of Egypt. Did you ever see the movie The Prince of Egypt?...  Another descendant of Abraham was David who became a king of Abraham’s clan. God promised to King David that one of his descendants would reign on a throne and that his kingdom would last forever. Of course, Abraham, Moses, and David were all flawed and like other wonderful-awful humans, they betrayed God too. Even David’s kingdom fell apart. Nevertheless, they all pointed to Someone greater in this story. The plot thickens!

If fact, the main person in God’s human story is God himself! As a solution to humanity’s dilemma, God became human. God intervened! The answer to human betrayal and human brokenness was God himself who entered human history. This is the Christmas story and the event that marks how we calculate the years! The ultimate solution to the problem of human betrayal was God taking on human flesh. This may be the most radical claim of any religion! God was born as a human into Abraham’s clan and came to bless all the peoples of the earth. He came as Redeemer to release us from slavery to our awful, sinful condition. He was bigger and better than Moses! When God became human, he came as a descendant of David, the promised Messiah-King whose name was Jesus of Nazareth. Let me ask you: What do you think would happen if God became human and lived on earth? …

Jesus came announcing the kingdom of God. As the promised Redeemer and King, he came with the mission to restore humans and creation to the way we were designed to be at the beginning. Jesus performed miracles, something that God-in-human-flesh can do! Uniquely, this kingdom of God (unlike the Roman Emperor’s) was not based on political power but upon Jesus’ death upon a Roman cross, and his resurrection, being raised from the dead. This is the Easter story. This may be difficult to comprehend but the Bible says that Jesus’ death and resurrection were necessary to rescue and restore human beings and his creation. Jesus, the King-Messiah, died for our crimes (sins) that we committed against God. He died so that our betrayal would die with him. He rose from the dead to beat death and its power over us.

It was through these acts of his death and resurrection that humans can be restored, beat death too, and have hope and life again in harmony with God.

But the story does not end here. Jesus said that fullness of his kingdom will bring judgment and perfect justice in the world. This will be a day when everything is set right, a day that will end betrayal, ego-centeredness, oppression, racism, and injustice. Do you long for perfect justice in the world? … What is the justice that you hope for?... Do you think everyone should be judged based on what they deserve? …

Of course, death and separation from God is still a real option. Let me draw a stick man here with the question: What about you? Bill, where do you stand in this story? Where do you see yourself? The question that Jesus presented to people was whether they would enter the kingdom of God or not. He never forced anyone to enter. When he presented the choice to people, some chose to enter his kingdom and others chose not to enter. To enter brings a reconciled relationship with God (forgiveness) and participation in his mission to restore humans and creation. And he empowers us to do so! To enter means following Jesus as a way of life now with the hope of the fullness of the kingdom of God, experiencing the promises of God’s blessings of hope and life now and forever! Of course, not entering means ongoing separation and death. We either choose to enter or continue on the current path.

Bill, what would your life look like five years from now if you choose to enter the kingdom of God? What would your life look like five years from now if you don’t? A person enters the kingdom of God by turning from our ego-centered ways and turning to God, believing he became human in Jesus Christ who died on the cross and was raised from the dead.

Is there any reason why you would not want to enter the kingdom of God? God offers you a choice. Would you like to enter the kingdom of God?

Christians and Booze: “Life in the spirits” Part Two

Abstinence
 

While a Christian is free to drink alcoholic beverages, an option is abstinence, refraining from drinking alcoholic beverages altogether. This may be a long-term or short-term practice. There are several good reasons to abstain from alcohol. The first is to consider the thoughts and feelings of others. In the early church, drunkenness was associated with pagan religion. When people became Christians and converted from paganism, they needed to break from this lifestyle, particularly, from debauchery—excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures. However, there were other Christians, probably Jewish Christians, who did not have this background, and would exercise their liberty to drink wine in front of converts from paganism. What resulted was that the Gentile converts were deeply offended and grieved. So, in Romans 14:13 Paul says:

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. (NIV)

Later in this passage, he gives specific principles about drinking wine.

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. Romans 14:19-21

While a Christian may have the liberty, maturity and self-discipline, he or she may choose not to exercise this liberty for the sake of another brother or sister who cannot handle it. Besides other Christians, Paul asks us to consider even the thoughts of not-yet-Christians.

 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. 1 Cor. 10:31-33 (NIV)

Of course, this does not mean that we should neglect teaching new brothers and sisters about their freedom in Christ. There will always be not-yet-Christians coming within view of the church and new converts coming into the community of the church. Therefore, the mature and knowledgeable believers should lead them toward maturity, “admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present them fully mature in Christ," (Colossians 1:28).  This includes a biblical perspective of Christian liberty, discernment, and life in the Spirit.

As an argument for teetotalling, I have been asked: “But what about the alcoholic that comes into the church?  If Christians are drinking booze, won’t this cause him to stumble … to relapse?”  This is a fair question and one that we should consider, especially when ministering to a variety of people.  Christians do need to be aware of various conditions of people, their needs, vices, and struggles, and act with discernment and discretion.

Alcoholism

The Pastoral Epistles state that elders in the church are not to be drunkards, and in the same way “deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine,” or as the ESV states: “not addicted to much wine,” (1 Tim. 3:8). The issue may not be drunkenness but alcoholism—an addiction or mental and physical condition from the excessive and/or regular use of alcohol, even in social settings. Alcoholism may be more covert than drunkenness, showing up in various ways.  (See the NCADD Self-Test).

 Alcoholics generally need an intervention and regular support toward a life of sobriety and serenity.  As an associate pastor, I attended an AA support group hosted by our church for two years. I learned a lot from the leader, Jim, who did not advocate avoiding the world of booze as much as navigating successfully through it. Alcoholics that attended found support in the group (and other groups) which was greater than the temptation they faced.  At times sponsors gave members the assignment to enter and exit a liquor store without buying anything. Thus, for me the argument that Christians should not serve or drink alcoholic beverages because an alcoholic might be present, does not understand an addict’s road to recovery or life within a world of booze.  On the other hand, if an alcoholic needs to attend an AA meeting just to counter the pressure from Christians to drink, the Christians should exercise greater discretion and sensitivity, not doing something that will cause a brother to fall.

A second reason for abstinence is religious devotion or spiritual focus. In Leviticus 10:9, the priests of Israel were commanded not "to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die." The Lord had called them to holiness, and their judgment in priestly functions could not be clouded. Abstinence was also the practice of those taking a Nazirite vow. Nazirite from the word nazir means "consecrated one."

The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite, he must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or from other fermented drink. He must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. As long as he is a Nazirite, he must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins. Numbers 6:1-4 (NIV)

When an Israeli wanted to set himself apart unto God and devote his whole life to the Lord, he took a Nazirite vow. This was the highest level of consecration and included abstinence from wine and other fermented beverages, as well as anything that comes from the grapevine including grapes, raisins, grape seeds and grape juice! Samuel and Samson were Nazirites for life (1 Samuel 1:14-15; Judges 13:4,7).  John the Baptist also had taken a Nazirite vow (Luke 1:15; 7:33). A Nazirite vow could last for 30, 60 or 90 days- or even a lifetime.

 Similarly, a Christian today may voluntarily choose a vow of abstinence from alcoholic beverages as an act of devotion to God (Acts 18:18; 21:23). This may be for a predetermined period of time, similar to a fast from food. Obviously, a Christian who makes this choice for abstinence will not sin by drunkenness, and not become an alcoholic.

Other reasons for abstaining from alcohol include: ministry to alcoholics, recovery from alcoholism, personal distaste for alcoholic beverages, health reasons recommended by a physician or pharmacist, athletic training-school code of conduct, role model to students and young athletes, avoiding a double standard for parents and children, matters of conscience when raised in the home of an alcoholic, and activity in organizations such as MADD and SADD. It is a matter of conscience, discretion, experience and conviction.

The Scriptures teach that a Christian is to be controlled by the Holy Spirit, not the spirit(s) of alcohol (Eph. 5:18; Acts 2:4, 13). While Christians have freedom to drink alcoholic beverages in moderation (wine, like food is clean), abstinence is preferred in many cases. Each Christian must decide before God what he or she should do, and then live by his or her conscience. Paul concludes his thoughts on eating and drinking by saying,

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. Romans 14:22-23 (NIV)