More Blog Action Day posts
Here are a few posts for Blog Action Day from blogs that I follow:
Jeff at “Losing My Religion: Re-Thinking Church” with “Teach a Man to Fish (and Other Things We Say to Make Ourselves Feel Better)“
Joe at “More Than Cake” with “Blog Action Day: Poverty and the Christian Mission“
Jeff at “Thoughts From Jeff” with “Poverty: Where is the Faith Community?“
Travis at “On the Other Hand” with “A 2000-Year Old Modern Day Parable“
These are all good posts. There are other good posts at the Blog Action Day web site.
The poor do not need your money
This post is part of Blog Action Day 2008 concerning the topic of poverty. For those reaching my blog through the Blog Action Day site, there is something you should know about me. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and I approach life from that perspective. The post is primarily written for other followers of Jesus Christ in an attempt to exhort and admonish others towards caring for the poor. However, I encourage others (even those who are not Christians) to interact with me in the comment concerning this topic.
If I had written this blog post a year ago, it would have been much different. Why? Because at that time I did not have any experience serving the poor. Instead, for most of my life, I had given money for others to take care of the poor. Looking back, I now see that I was blind to both the needs of those who are poor and the responsibilities that we have as children of God to take care of those who are poor.
Throughout the Old Testament prophets, God punishes his children primarily for two failures: 1) a failure to love Him, and 2) a failure to love others. They demonstrated that they did not love God by worshiping idols. They demonstrated that they did not love other people by refusing to care for the poor, the needy, the widows, the orphans, and the foreigners.
When we turn to the New Testament, Jesus again reinforces these two principles in what we call “The Great Commandment”: love God and love others. In the epistles, this two-fold command (and indeed “all the law”) is often summarized as “Love your neighbor” (Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8). Similarly, John writes that we do not love God (regardless of what we SAY) if we do not demonstrate love towards other people (1 John 3:17; 4:21).
Perhaps one of the most poignant passages related to caring for other people is found in Matthew’s Gospel:
Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,1 you did it to me.’
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:34-46 ESV)
We often argue about the nuanced implications of this passage without noticing (and living according to) what is obvious: those who are righteous in God’s perspective demonstrate their righteousness by caring for “the least”. In this passage, there are several examples give of those included in “the least”: the hungry, the thirsty, foreigners (strangers), those needing clothing, the sick, and those in prison. Furthermore, “the righteous” respond to the needs of “the least” with action: giving food or drink or clothing, welcoming the stranger, visiting those sick or in prison. These are not passive responses, but active responses. These are not delegated responses, but personal, intimate responses.
However, today, the church deals with “the least” in a much different way. We pool our money and pay others to deal with “the least”. We delegate our responsibilities and pat ourselves on the back for caring enough to give $5 (or even $100). The truth is, the poor do not need your money.
In his book Beyond Charity: The Call to Christian Community Development, John M. Perkins highlights the problem:
America’s best intentions, most sincere thoughts, noblest efforts – all of these are useless to the urban poor if they do no connect with our personally defined, deepest felt needs. In fact, acts of charity can be dangerous because givers can feel good about actions that actually accomplish very little, or even create dependency. The result is that their sense of satisfaction takes away any motivation to seek more creative long-range development strategies. Overcoming an attitude of charity is a difficult task because it requires givers to demand more of themselves than good will. (23)
Caring for the poor requires more than giving our money. Our God-given responsibility toward “the least” requires action – not simply giving money. If we are to care for “the least” as Scripture says “the righteous” will do, then we must start responding to “the least” in more appropriate and more personal and more intimate ways.
Like I said, just one year ago, my only response to the poor was to throw a little money at the problem. This may have alleviated my guilt for a short time, but it did very little – if anything – to actually help the poor. I was not living according to my God-given responsibilities toward “the least” by giving money. In fact, as Perkins points out, my money was probably causing more problems that it was helping.
A few months ago, our family started spending time every week with poor people in a government assisted housing development. We found that those living in poverty need much more than money. Primarily, the people that we’ve met need friendship first. They are lonely. Second, they have needs that a little money will not help, but a little time will – things like tutoring, financial planning, parenting help. If we are going to care for “the least”, we must be willing to be part of their lives and invite them to be part of our lives.
Last weekend, as I was driving homes from Pennsylvania with some friends, I received a call. Tina, one of the ladies that we’ve met, needs some help. Tina has had cancer, she has emphysema, and she’s been sick for the last couple of weeks. Over the weekend, Tina’s son OD’d. Tina needs help, but a few dollars out of my wallet will not help her. Instead, Tina needs a friend, and our family has told her that we will be there for her. We can’t alleviate her grief, but we can walk beside her through it.
John wrote, “And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother” (1 John 4:21 ESV). Do you love God? Are you demonstrating that love to others? Do you care about others enough to find out what they need and how you can help?
Its time for the church to stop throwing money at poverty and delegating others to care for the poor. Its time for followers of Jesus Christ to actually follow him by demonstrating his love to “the least”.
Blog Action Day Reminder – Poverty
Wednesday, October 15, is Blog Action Day 2008. On that day, thousands of bloggers will write about the topic of “Poverty”. Currently, over 8000 bloggers are signed up to take part. If you have a blog, why not click the banner below, sign up, and take part in this event.
God is teaching me alot about working with the poor. However, if I wrote last year, I would have had to admit that I had very little experience dealing with true poverty. Why? Because I never spent time with anyone who was poor. Now, by God’s grace, I have several friends who are poor. I do not say “By God’s grace” flippantly. I mean it. Because I’ve learned more from these new friends than they’ve learned from me.
But, if you are like I was last year, and if you have very little or no experience working with the poor, then write about that. Let this be a starting point, much like I wrote about a starting point last year in a post called “Bursting the Christian Bubble“.
Are any of my readers planning to take part in Blog Action Day 2008?
Who is my neighbor?
Mark, at “My Little Light“, has written this poem called “The Neighbor“.
I don’t know your name and I doubt we will ever meet.
I always see you at your church. I live across the street.I sit out on my front porch and wave at the passers by.
You never wave back. Maybe the sun is just in your eyes.I shout a hello to your family as the church doors you walk in.
I hear a muttered statement about missing church and sin.If the doors are open I see you there for every event that’s held.
Services, potlucks, and picnics. Oh, the food that I’ve smelled.I can hear the instruments and voices as you praise your God.
While I enjoy the music I must admit that I find one thing odd.I sometimes hear your pastor preach about spreading the word.
I scratch my head and wonder if any of you really heard.Cause I don’t know your name and I doubt we will ever meet.
I always see you at your church, but none of you see me.
Since our church doesn’t own a building, we don’t have “neighbors” in the sense that Mark is talking about in his poem. However, we do have neighbors. What kind of neighbor am I?
Gathering and Serving all weekend long
Saturday morning, some of my friends planned a work day to help a family with their house. The husband has been trying to put new siding on his house, but he has had to travel for work alot during the last year. Plus, this family is always serving others. Even when the husband is in town, he’s usually working on someone’s car or helping people in others ways.
So, while he was out of town, several people got together and put siding on part of his house for him (his wife knew about it, but he didn’t). They worked for 13 hours. Margaret, my wife, and our children helped out as well. Because I had some other work that I needed to do, I was not able to help. But, it was so encouraging to see these friends come together to give of themselves, their time, and their energy to serve others.
I did take a break to go to the government-assisted housing project that our family has been visiting on Saturday mornings. Since my family was helping out our friends, they did not go with me. I know several of the neighbors were disappointed that I was the only one who came by that morning. But, I was still able to give out some fresh produce and talk to many of the people in the neighborhood. (Please pray for two of the neighbors who are having difficulties in their relationship. They are both believers, and we’re helping them to reconcile their relationship.)
One of the neighbors is a single mother with four children. She works and attends school. She’s very close to finishing her course of study, but she’s saved Physics for her last semester of classes. I’ve helped her study for Physics before, and she said that she needed more help. Unfortunately, I’m behind in my own studies because of my recent eye problems. I asked her if she could meet with us Sunday morning, and then I could help her with Physics after lunch. She said that she was working Sunday morning, but she might come by after lunch.
Sunday morning we had a good church meeting. Just as we were getting ready to eat lunch, this single mother walked in. I was very surprised! I was even more surprised to see how my brothers and sisters welcomed her and talked to her. We invited her to eat with us, and she accepted our invitation. (But, then, the chili smelled so good, who could have refused?)
After we ate and talked for a while, she took out her Physics books. As we were getting ready to study, a good friend of mine sat across from her and started talking to her about Physics. He’s a professor also, teaching Science and Engineering at a college in Raleigh. Before I knew it, he was tutoring her in Physics! I didn’t teach her anything. What a blessing!
After they finished reviewing two chapters of Physics, she thanked my friend, and my wife walked her back to her car. I thanked my friend for serving her in that way.
What a blessing to know that God has surrounded us with people who are willing to give of themselves to others, both towards friends who are also servants and towards those who can never give back!
The changing role of the "layman"
Everett Ferguson edited a book called Church, Ministry, and Organization in the Early Church Era (New York: Garland Publishing, 1993). The book is a collection of articles concerning early church leadership.
One chapter, “The Role of the Layman in the Ancient Church,” was originally a speech given by George Huntston Williams to “the working party gathered by the Department on the Laity of the World Council of Churches, New Haven, Connecticut, July 21, 1957”. In this article, Huntston discusses the changing role of the layman in the early church.
First, Huntston defines what he means by “laity”:
Our understanding of the laity will be shaped, not primarily in terms of ordination and the lack thereof, nor of theological education and the relative want thereof, but rather in terms of the Church gathered for worship, instruction, and deliberation (ekklesia) over against the equally important “church†diffused or scattered or seeded in the work-a-day world (diaspora) as leaven in the lump (not as wheat among tares!). On this view even the ordained cleric is, in a sense, in his action as husbandman and citizen a ‘laic.’ (pg 273-274)
Thus, Huntston is differentiating between those who remain in one place (“laity”), and those who are scattered and move around from place to place.
While I don’t use the term “laity” in its traditional sense, it is a valid scriptural term. The Greek word behind the English “laity” simply means “people”. It is the term used when the church is referred to as the “people of God”. Thus, as Huntston says, all Christians are “laity” in this sense.
How did the “role of the layman” change in the early church? Well, Huntston describes three different states (although I would assume there would be some overlap):
At three points is the position of the laity markedly different in the ante- and the post-Nicene epochs. In the very first days of the Church’s self-consciousness as a new people set apart, the whole of the Church as the laos tou theou [people of God] was seen over against the people of the old covenant, while the baptismal recruits were understood to have entered into a priestly kingdom, neither Jew nor Gentile, no longer in bondage to the world about them, yet servants of the King to come. Then, with the maturation of subapostolic Christianity, this historico-thoelogical conviction made room for the functional differentiation between the clerical officers of the priestly people of God and the unordained faithful in a process which was completed before the end of the persecutions and which was indeed abetted by them. The bishop had become an awesome monarch… Finally, with the conversion of Constantine and the Christianization of his office, Christianity in the period of the great councils found itself contrasting not clergy and laity as in the ante-Nicene period, but clergy and the chief of the laity, namely, the Christian emperor. (pg. 274-275)
According to Huntston, the role changed from a focus on the service (ministry) of all people of God, to a focus on the “ordained” people of God, to a focus on what he calls “the imperious royal-priestly claims of the Christianized head of state”.
I think other historians have made similar claims. The questions for us to consider are the following: Is this development normal and natural and should we continue developing the role and responsibilities of believers as times and customs dictate? If so, how do we determine how the roles of the people of God change? If not, how do we determine which “state” is preferred?
Leadership is not decision-making
When we study the idea of leadership in Scripture, we find that leadership in the church is not decision-making, and decision-making is not leadership. When we study the idea of leadership in today’s church, we find that leadership is primarily about decision-making.
Ready almost any book on ecclesiology or church leadership, and you’ll read about various forms of “church government” or “church polity”. You’ll read about the episcopal form, in which a bishop (or senior pastor) makes decisions for the church. You’ll also read about the presbyterian form, in which a group of people (elders, pastors, staff, or deacons) make decisions for the church. Finally, you’ll read about the congregational form, in which the church itself makes the decisions.
But, when we search Scripture to determine who should make decisions for the church, we come up short. Scripture does not deal with the concept of making decisions for the church. Yes, we find church leadership in the church: elders, bishops, pastors, deacons, teachers, etc. But, these are not mentioned in the context of making decisions. However, we do find that decisions are made in Scripture.
In Acts 6, the people come to the apostles with a problem. Some of the widows are not receiving food, while others are receiving food. The apostles did not make decisions for the people. Instead, the apostles tell the people to take care of the situation. The apostles lead by suggesting characteristics of those who should serve these widows, but they do not make the decision for the people.
In Acts 15, a major question is brought before the apostles: should Gentile Christians become Jews – i.e. should they be circumcised and required to keep the law. The decision that would be made at this time would affect the church for all ages. Who made the decisions? The apostles? Yes, they were part of the decision-making process. The elders? Yes, they were part of the decision-making process. Others? Yes, even Barnabas and Paul were allowed to take part even though they were part of the church in Antioch. In fact, it seems that the entire church took part in the decision-making process. But, certainly the entire church would not have been considered leaders.
In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul writes to the church in Corinth about a “brother” who was living an immoral life. The church was doing nothing about this situation, and Paul admonished them for it. Paul told them what he thought they should do about this situation, but who was responsible for making the decision to actually do it? Apparently, Paul left that up to the church.
In each case, the “leaders” involved guided and taught and admonished and exhorted, but they did not make decisions for other people. In fact, in 3 John, we see an example of a “leader” who does make decisions for people, and John speaks of him (Diotrephes) negatively.
So, if leadership is not about decision-making in Scripture, then what is leadership? Leadership is service – serving people. Service should be the start of the discussion about church leadership, and service should be the end of the discussion about church leadership. Teaching is about service. Sherpherding is about service. Overseeing (watching out for) is about service. Leadership is about service. Those who do not serve are not leaders in the scriptural sense.
When we see discussions about church government (polity) and its different forms, we should recognize that these questions and forms and structures arose after the New Testament was written. For example, it is from Ignatius that we learn that the bishop should make decisions for the church and that the church should do nothing without the approval of the bishop.
Now, this does not mean that scriptural leaders (servants) do not have influence concerning decisions. They do and they should. Assuming that we have recognized leaders because of their spiritual maturity and their service to others (and this is a HUGE assumption that is often not true), then we should ask for their opinions, and we should often follow what they say (Heb. 13:17). Leaders, on the other hand, must recognize that we can selfishly use our influence to get our own way – even when the outcome doesn’t really matter.
Since they are more spiritually mature (we’re assuming, remember), then leaders should be the first to give up their rights for the rights of others. Leaders should be the first to consider others as more important than themselves and, therefore, to consider the opinion of others as more important than their own opinion. When leaders are concerned about a decision, then they influence that decision through service, teaching, admonishment, exhortation, but not by attempting to exercising authority – that authority belongs only to the one head of the church. Leaders must be willing to serve all, and allow Christ to control the decision-making.
But, that’s not what we find today. Instead, when people talk about leadership in the church, they talk about decision-making. Perhaps, we need to stop trying to make decisions, and start serving. If a decision has to be made (and make sure that it actually HAS to be made), then offer your opinion, teach, admonish, exhort, etc. Then, allow the ones affected by the decision to make that decision.
To do that, of course, we’ll have to find leaders who are willing to serve only.
Start Practicing Your Faith
Jared, from “the gospel-driven church“, has written a helpful article at “SearchWarp” called “Five Missional Practices You Can Do Now“. Here are Jared’s suggestions:
- Pray for a changed heart.
- Meditate on the Gospel of the Kingdom.
- Talk to you neighbors.
- Volunteer.
- Go public with your church.
Jared explains each of this points in detail. I agree that these are positive steps toward becoming “missional” – that is, living the gospel among the world. Do you have other suggestions?
Learning about Apostles
Sunday, I taught from Matthew 10:5-15 as we continue to study through the Gospel of Matthew. In this passage, Jesus sends out the twelve after telling them to pray that God would send workers into the harvest fields. I learned something very interesting about the term “apostle” while I was studying this passage.
Did you know that Matthew only uses the term “apostle” once? You can find that one occurrence in Matthew 10:2 – “The names of the twelve apostles are these…” (then the names are listed). I already knew that John didn’t use the term “apostle” for the twelve (John uses the term once in John 13:16, but it doesn’t refer to the twelve), but I didn’t realize that Matthew only used it once. It turns out that Mark uses the term twice in Mark 3:14 (a parallel to Matthew 10:2) and Mark 6:30 which refers to the twelve when they returned after Jesus sent them out. Luke, on the other hand, uses the term “apostle” six times in his Gospel and 28 times in the Book of Acts (only in chapters 1-16, but no uses in chapters 17-28).
So, Matthew and Mark uses the term “apostle” only in reference to Jesus sending out the twelve to the “lost sheep” of Israel in order to proclaim that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. Thus, it seems that for Matthew and Mark the focus of the term “apostle” was on being sent, not on the fact that these twelve spent time with Jesus nor on their authority because of their association with Jesus. Elsewhere in Scripture the term “apostle” is used to identify those who had spent time with Jesus and who had authority because of their association with Jesus, but that does not appear to be Matthew’s or Mark’s focus. By the way, the term “apostle” is also used elsewhere in Scripture in reference to those who were “sent”, but who did not necessarily spend time with Jesus: Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25), Silas and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1; 2:6), Apollos (1 Cor 4:6, 9), and Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7).
As we’ve studied through Matthew so far, we’ve noticed that Jesus came to proclaim the kingdom of God (Matt 3:2; 4:17; 9:35). Now, Jesus is “sending out” the twelve as his representative. What is their “charge”? They are also to proclaim the kingdom of God (Matt 10:7). (Luke also indicates that Jesus later sent out seventy others to proclaim the kingdom.)
To me, this study puts the “Great Commission” in perspective of the whole Gospel of Matthew. After Jesus rose from the dead but before he ascended, he told his followers:
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:18-20 ESV)
This commission is not something tacked onto the end of the Gospel of Matthew. Instead, the idea of sending out representatives to proclaim the kingdom is part of Jesus’ plan throughout the Gospel. This should remind us again that we are both a gathered people and a sent people. (see “The Gathered and the Sent“) God gathers us out of the world in order to send us back into the world.
Problems ensue when we begin to focus on being gathered and neglect being sent, or when we focus on being sent and neglect being gathered. We are both. Just as Jesus called the twelve to himself and then sent them out. Jesus also calls us to himself (gathers us – Matt 16:18; 18:20) and sends us out.
If someone were to examine your life from the outside, do you think they would see a balance between being gathered and being sent? Or would they see an emphasis on one and a neglect of the other? If so, which one is emphasized and which is neglected?
Am I against church programs?
About a year ago, I wrote a post called “Am I against church programs?” in which I tried to explain my thoughts about programs in the church. Since my previous post concerned program and organization and institutionalization, I thought this would be a good time to review this older post. I hope you enjoy…
————————————————————
Am I against church programs?
Many times, I am asked, “Are you against church programs?” Some people, knowing that I do not stress church programs, also make a jump in logic and ask, “Why are you against church programs?”
My simple answer is, “I am neutral toward church programs.” In general, I am neither for church programs nor against church programs. Of course, in a time when churches define themselves by their programs (check out most church web sites), stating that I am not for church programs usually causes those who are for church programs to view me as the enemy – somehow against the work of God in their programs. But, this is not the case at all. I recognize that God works in many different ways, including through many programs. So, my neutral stance should not be recognized as being antagonistic toward church programs.
This then, usually brings up another question: “Why are you neutral toward church programs?”
The best way for me to answer this question is to turn to Scripture, specifically Mark 7:1-13:
Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”
And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God) – then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:1-13 ESV)
In this passage, Jesus deals specifically with traditions that had been handed down to and taught by the Pharisees. Notice that Jesus did not condemn these traditions, but neither did he promote them. However, Jesus did condemn any tradition that causes the individual or group to leave or reject the command of God.
Just to pick on a particular church program (tradition), let’s consider Sunday School. Sunday School is not a command of God. It is not required of believers to attend Sunday School. So, if we are not responsible for attending Sunday School, what are we responsible for? We are responsible to make disciples, to teach one another, to have fellowship with one another, to serve one another, etc. Many would say that these are the purposes of Sunday School. I agree that these are usually the purposes of Sunday School. But, when we teach “attending Sunday School” as a requirement for believers, then we are teaching our traditions instead of the commands of God, even though we may have held to our traditions as a means to keeping the commands of God.
Unfortunately, many times we teach people to hold to our traditions and to participate in our programs because the programs are easier to measure and control. For example, many times church organizations will use Sunday School attendance as a measure of discipleship. In the same way, the church organizations will control who can teach in their programs in order to protect from any instructions that would disagree with the stance of the organization. These programs and traditions, while probably started in order to help believers keep the commands of God, tend to replace the commands of God – either consciously or unconsciously – in the minds of the believers.
Thus, when asked if they are making disciples, believers can point to their attendance in Sunday School. When asked if they are evangelistic, they can point to the organization’s evangelism program. When asked if they are teaching their children to walk in the ways of God, they can point to their children’s ministry. When asked if they praise God, they can point to their participation in choir. When asked if they give to others who are in need, they can point to their tithes and offerings. When asked if they fellowship with other believers, they can point to their covered dish dinners. When asked if they worship God, they can point to their attendance at a Sunday morning meeting (“worship service”). However, while each of these programs may be means to helping believers obey God, attendance or participation are not the goal in and of themselves; and, furthermore, attendance or participation neither equates with obedience nor do they preclude the individual’s responsibility toward God and toward his fellow believers.
This does not mean that I think programs are inherently evil. Jesus did not condemn the traditions of the Pharisees in general, and I do not condemn programs in general. In fact, I have seen programs work very well. Usually, this happens when the program is organized for a specific and short-term purpose.
For example, if a family’s house is destroyed by fire, an organized program to help them with money, food, accommodations, etc. would be very beneficial. In this case, the “benevolence” program has a specific purpose: to help the church show kindness and to serve this family who is in need. When the need is met, then the program would stop. What usually happens, though, is that this “benevolence” program is continued after the need is met. Thus, we feel a need to continue to staff and maintain a “benevolence” committee or program which has no specific goal, other than show benevolence, which is the requirement of all believers, not just those in this program. The program becomes the goal, instead of the means to meeting a goal.
My friend Eric, from “Hammer and Nail“, described my position on church programs in a comment to his post called “Let Them See the Gospel“. He said:
I think one reason people outside the church may not see a living faith within the church is that we often rely on church programs to accomplish the work the individuals should be doing. I know that opens up a big “can of worms” about church programs. However, I think the connection is real. Programs, whether good or not so good, often lead people into shirking their personal responsibility to serve others by thinking that the church program will take care of it. Within the church, we need to talk much of personal responsibility to serve one another within the body and outside the body.
Thus, our goal should not be creating, promoting, staffing, and running church programs. Our goal should be discipleship, fellowship, evangelism, hospitality, service, etc. These things can happen within church programs. But, they can also be hindered when church programs become the focus and goal of our organizations. The church should focus on loving God and loving others through discipleship, fellowship, evangelism, hospitality, service, etc. instead of focusing on creating and maintaining programs.