Christian Leadership and Pastoral Ministry Is Not For Wimps

"A question was submitted for the 2019 G3 Conference questions & answers session that asked the following question:  “I’m a young man who is preparing for pastoral ministry in the local church. As a seminary student, what counsel would you give to me as I prepare for the future?”

In the fall of the year just before we would move to Louisville to attend seminary the following January, my wife and I made an agreement that we would not purchase Christmas presents for each other and we would save money for the upcoming move. Without my knowledge, she wrote to several preachers asking for them to write a letter to me in order to provide wisdom for me as I prepared to move away to attend seminary. She compiled each of those letters in a nice binder and provided it to me as a gift that Christmas. I still look through it to this very day as it sits on the shelf in my study. One letter stands out to me as it states the following:

My word to you is to always remember that you are merely a vessel and He is the Treasure. Just a river bed for the river to flow. Any demands God makes on you is not on your ability but on the Christ who promised to be your sufficiency for the journey. Remember that any old bush will do if God set it on fire for His glory. May the Holy Spirit give you enough problems to keep you trusting, enough hurts to keep you broken, and enough victories to keep you praising Him. Only God can take nothing and indwell him so he can be more than a conqueror.

Dereliction of Duty: the Preacher Who Dodges Unpopular Biblical Texts

Dereliction of duty- Definition: "The shameful failure to fulfill one's obligations."

Many pastors today should step down from ministry altogether because they clearly love the applause of men (Gal. 1:10) more than they value the approval of Almighty God. No where is this seen more clearly today then in evangelical pulpits.

God's expectations could not be anymore clear on this matter: "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.  But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." (2 Timothy 4:1-5)

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)

The goal of Christian ministry is to lead souls to Christ AND to then teach and preach in such a way as to present every believer "mature in Christ" (Colossians 1:28-29; Hebrews 5:12-14; Matthew 28:18-20).  Being a Word-driven preacher and a Christ-centered congregation is not rocket science.  Faithful Christian ministry requires demands hard work (Col. 1:29) and faith; (trust and obey).  

The state of Christian living in America today is what it is, in part, because far too many Church leaders are more interested in attracting large masses of people then they are in "building up the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-16).  Pastor Kevin DeYoung is spot on when he says, "The preacher who dodges or changes a text because he knows there are men and women out there who don't want to hear it.  That man ought not to be a preacher."

Gathered Worship: Make It a Top Priority

It is God's will that every believer belong to a local church (1 Pet. 4:10-11).  By "belong" we mean faithful attendance (Heb. 10:24), service (1 Peter 4:10-11), and giving (Prov. 3:9).  This is so, in part, because the church is central in the purpose/plan of God for this present age (Matt. 16:18; Acts 20:28).  Despite the church's many spots, blemishes, and wrinkles- Jesus loves the Church dearly- and so must we!

By God's design the ministries of a Word-centered assembly help believers grow and mature in the faith (Col. 1:28-29; Eph. 4:11-16).  In this regard the local church is like a spiritual umbilical cord.  

It is sinful for a professing believer to forsake the regular assembly of the gathered church (Heb. 10:24).  The Holy Spirit would never led a Spirit-filled saint to act in a manner contrary to the Word He inspired.  Family bible study or a home care group is no substitute for full fledged involvement in the life of the local church.  Anyone who suggests otherwise is reading a different New Testament.

"Preparing for corporate worship means making time and making choices. Worship, especially corporate worship, takes time. It takes commitment. We must set aside time to come. We need to guard our schedules and consider times of corporate worship a priority.

Listen to what the Word of God tells us about gathering together:  And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near (Hebrews 10:24–25).

Here the writer of Hebrews highlights the importance of regularly meeting together with the church. He also acknowledges that “neglecting to meet together” was a problem in the early church, and had even become a habit of some. The word used here in the Greek for meeting is episunagogen. We are not to neglect the “coming together,” “assembly” or “gathering” [synagogue].

Though we should daily encourage and pray for one another as we have opportunity to invest in each other’s lives, there is a measure of encouragement, participation and life in the church that cannot be attained or replicated apart from the regular assembly of God’s people in corporate worship. We need to hear God’s Word read and proclaimed together. We need to pray and sing God’s praise together. Listening to sermon recordings or broadcasts can’t replicate it. Singing worship songs along with your iPod can’t match it. We need to see and hear and know and feel the testimony of lives changed by the power of the Gospel, covenanted, unified and gathered together all in one place, in the same room, for His glory.

What is "Biblical Counseling?" What is it not? (pt. 2)

By the grace of God, Lake Country Bible Church has well trained, ACBC certified biblical counselors and we are in the process of raising up more. These believers seek to use their spiritual gifts to help those in need for the edification of the church and the glory of Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5:14; Col. 1:28; Eph. 4:11-16; Jude 22-23). Our leadership team is also committed to being "shepherd-leaders" and not just decision makers (1 Peter 5:1-4; 1 Thess. 2:8).

What exactly is true Biblical Counseling? What is it not? 

III. Counseling Practice

In light of these realities, ACBC endorses the following standards of belief and practice for its certified counselors and counseling centers that would care for people diagnosed with the complicated problems identified as mental disorders.

1. Biblical Counselors must acknowledge that human beings struggle with physical and spiritual problems.

2. Biblical counselors shall encourage the use of physical examinations and testing by physicians for diagnosis of medical problems, the treatment of these problems, and the relief of symptoms, which might cause, contribute to, or complicate counseling issues.

3. Biblical counselors shall help their counselees respond biblically to physical problems, but deny that spiritual interventions are the only proper response to problems with a medical element. They reject any teaching, which excludes the importance of the body and the goodness of God, which leads to the blessing of medical care.

4. Biblical counselors reject the notion that medical interventions solve spiritual problems. They embrace the use of medicine for cure and symptom relief, but deny that medical care is sufficient for spiritual problems, which require Christ and his gospel for ultimate relief and lasting change.

What is "Biblical Counseling?" What is it not? (pt. 1)

By the grace of God, Lake Country Bible Church has well trained, ACBC certified biblical counselors and we are in the process of raising up more.  These believers seek to use their spiritual gifts to help those in need for the edification of the church and the glory of Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5:14; Col. 1:28; Eph. 4:11-16; Jude 22-23).  Our leadership team is also committed to being "shepherd-leaders" and not just decision makers (1 Peter 5:1-4; 1 Thess. 2:8).

What exactly is true Biblical Counseling? What is it not?  

I. Mental Disorders and Biblical Counseling

We live in a broken world full of people suffering with profound trouble and intense pain. One manifestation of that brokenness is the problem that our culture recognizes as mental disorder. Increasing numbers of people are diagnosed with these complex difficulties, which require wisdom and multi-faceted care. We confess that, too often, the church of Jesus Christ has not been recognized as a source for profound hope and meaningful help for such difficult problems. We further acknowledge that many Christians have contributed to a negative stigma attached to such diagnoses through simplistic understandings of these problems, and have offered solutions grounded in ignorance.

As an organization committed to pursuing excellence in biblical counseling the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors has, for decades, been calling upon faithful Christians to grow in the twin tasks of understanding complex problems and learning skills to address them in the context of counseling. As an organization committed to the sufficiency of Scripture for counseling we believe that the Bible provides profound wisdom to guide us in caring for people diagnosed with mental disorders.

One example of this wisdom is the biblical teaching on dichotomy. The Bible is clear that God created human beings to consist of both a body and soul. To be a human being is to exist in these two constituent parts, which are separable only at death. Even after death, Christians confess that the bodies and souls of human beings will be restored at the Last Day. This biblical truth points to the high honor and regard that God gives to both the physical and spiritual realities of humanity.[1]

A theological reality like this one requires Christians to honor both body and soul as crucial to human existence. Christians, therefore, should respect medical interventions as a fully legitimate form of care for those struggling in this fallen world. Examinations by medical professionals are crucial adjuncts to a biblical counseling ministry as they discover and treat, or rule out physical problems, which lead many to seek counseling help.

Another example of this biblical wisdom is the teaching in Scripture on the dynamic nature of problems that we experience in a fallen world. Human beings have difficulties, which always carry physical and spiritual implications. Both aspects need to be addressed in an appropriate fashion. Human beings experience problems with spiritual implications for which they are morally culpable and must repent. Human beings experience other physical and spiritual problems, which are not a consequence of their sins, are not their fault, but which are painful realities that attend life in a fallen world.[2]

This theological reality requires Christians to approach problems in a complex way, rather than a simplistic one. Christians understand that some spiritual realities will require a rebuke, but others will require encouragement in the midst of pain. Still others will require help in the midst of weakness.

II. Mental Disorders in Contemporary Culture

True Preaching and Sanctified Sweat Go Hand in Hand (2 Tim. 2:15; Col. 1:29)

A Biblical Critique of Tim Keller's "Center Church" (pt. 8)

Who is Responsible for the Cultural Mandate? The Church Organized or Organic?

For a book devoted to ecclesiology, one of CC’s greatest weaknesses was its inconsistency about the church’s mission.  While Keller affirms that there is a cultural mandate, the million dollar ecclesiological question is whether the cultural mandate belongs to the church organized (the corporate, gathered body) or organic (the individuals who make up the church as they scatter into the world).  How does Keller answer the question?  It depends on which page you read.  For example, from the following quotes Keller teaches that the cultural mandate is exclusively the function of individual Christians as they live godly lives in the work place, school, and neighborhood:

…it is important to remind ourselves of the critical distinction between the ‘church institutional’ and the ‘church organic.’ Abraham Kuyper taught that the church institutional was the gathered church, organized under its officers and ministers.  It is called to do ‘Word and sacrament’—to preach the gospel, baptize, and make disciples.  This he distinguished from the church organic, referring to all Christians living in the world who have been discipled and equipped to bring the gospel to bear on all of life. (240-41)

…it is best to think of the organized church’s primary function as evangelizing and equipping people to be disciples and then sending the ‘organic church’—Christians at work in the world—to engage culture, do justice, and restore God’s shalom.  In many expositions of the missional church, this distinction virtually disappears. (268)

So we hold that the institutional church should give priority to Word ministry, but we also teach that Christians must do both word and deed ministry in the world—and the church should equip them to do so. (324-25)

On the other hand, there are other paragraphs where Keller records that the institutional church has a theological obligation to meet the social mandate and fulfill mercy ministries.

A Biblical Critique of Keller's "Center Church" (pt. 7)

The Implications of Keller’s View of Common Grace:

I believe that the following are necessary implications of Keller’s view of common grace.  Although Keller may not agree that these are necessary implications, I don’t see how they can be avoided with his theological foundation.

1.  This view distracts the church from Gospel work.  I don’t see any biblical warrant for the social mandate being added to the great commission.  Besides, no church can possibly be faithful to both word and deed mandates when the word mandate promises persecution, and the deed mandate promises appreciation.  These two mandates are entirely of a different spirit.

2.  This view ends up depreciating special grace.  If you believe that to promote human flourishing is half of the great commission for the church, then you must admit that not only are many unbelievers accomplishing God’s will for the world, but so are the cults.  Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are doing a fine work of making the world a better place, as well as religions like Roman Catholicism.  Furthermore, “A theory of common grace based on a natural theology is destructive of all grace, common or special.”[1]  The world accomplishes the social mandate by virtue of common grace.  When added to the great commission, the reality of common grace dilutes the message of special grace.  According to CC, the compelling power of the gospel is seen in a function that relates to common grace—the world appreciates a church that does the same social work that they do.  According to the Bible, the compelling power of the gospel is seen in a function that relates to special grace—power over sin and practical holiness of those in the church.

The Church

The Church is the body of Christ composed of repentant believers in the gospel.  Those in the church have separated themselves from the perverse generation of the culture around them and devote themselves to the life of the church and the apostles teaching (Acts 2:38-42).  The composition of the church reflects the gospel’s work in the lives of sinners.  When a professing Christian lives like the world in unrepentance, they are to be disciplined out of the church (Matt. 16:19; 18:15-20; Jn. 20:23; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Th. 3:14-15; Tit. 3:9-11).  The biblical aims of church discipline are, 1) restoration of a sinning brother (Mt. 18:15b; 2 Cor. 2:5-11), 2) protection of other believers (1 Cor. 5:6-11), and 3) protection of the gospel manifested to the world by the lives of individuals in the church (Acts 5:13-14, after Ananias and Sapphira in vv. 1-11; 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 5:25-26; 1 Pet. 2:11-12).  These goals are undermined if the church includes nonbelievers in makeup, let alone allows their participation in visible, up-front ministry.

A Biblical Critique of Tim Keller's "Center Church" (pt. 6)

Can Unbelievers Fulfill the Missio Dei?

I recently read about some of the homeless in Philadelphia.  Two different groups attempted to come alongside a charitable organization to help these people.  On the one hand, churches in the greater Philly area raised some money to buy them some things, one of which was microwave popcorn.  On the other hand, the mafia showed up and handed out brand new bicycles to kids, a turkey to each family, and gave thousands of dollars to the organization.  After considering the fact that these people had no microwaves, let alone electricity, the author wrote, “I thought to myself, I guess God can use the mafia, but I would like God to use the church.”[1]

This raises an important question.  Can unbelievers fulfill the purpose of the church and please the Lord?  Keller seems to answer yes and no.  He would ultimately say no, of course.  But he repeatedly affirms the necessary balance of remaining in the center of the Word mandate and the Deed mandate (see the previous and next section).  Yet unbelievers regularly perform the Deed mandate.  Keller is burdening the church with a mandate that doesn’t require the Holy Spirit.  Not only are these two—Christians and the world—at odds, lacking any harmony or shared passion (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1), but those who don’t have Christ or His Spirit cannot do anything beneficial in the spiritual sense.  Jesus said, “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5).  Whatever the unbeliever can do—no matter how beneficial it is because of common grace—can’t be called ‘fruit.’  And Paul said, “For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom 8:6-8).  Whatever the unbeliever does accomplish, it is never submissive to God’s authority or pleasing to Him.

It appears impossible to avoid one of two implications.  If the church is called to fulfill a task that unbelievers can and do already you are left with two options.  Either a) the church ought to focus on what cannot biblically be called fruit, submission, or anything pleasing to God, or b) unbelievers don’t need the church, the gospel, or Christ’s Spirit to accomplish half of the missio Dei!   The former is too preposterous to consider, and the latter leaves you wandering, “Why should the church focus on this so-called social mandate?”  Let the spiritually dead take care of that work, because not only can they, but they will be able to do a better job of it.  Why wouldn’t we take care of what the church alone can be a part of by God’s special grace—the evangelization of souls?

A Biblical Critique of Keller's "Center Church" (pt. 5)

Keller and Driscoll

Does the Church Have a Social Mandate?

This may sound like a question that should be answered in the third section, dealing with CC’s ecclesiology.  However, it truly belongs here, because Keller’s social mandate seems to be rooted in the doctrine of common grace.  Throughout large portions of the City section (chs. 7-18) of CC, Keller is evaluating positions and approaches to the culture.  He believes that the mission of the church must be balanced between the great commission and the cultural mandate to advance human flourishing.  He says,

We teach Christians to integrate their faith and their work so that they can be culture makers, working for human flourishing—the common good. (47)

…numbers do not always equate to influence.  Even if 80 percent of the population of a country are Christian believers, they will have almost no cultural influence if the Christians do no live in cultural centers and work in culture-forging fields such as academia, publishing, media, entertainment, and the arts.  The assumption that society will improve simply by more Christian believers being present is no longer valid.  If you care about having an influence on society, evangelism is not enough. (185)

But effective churches will be so involved in deeds of mercy and justice that outsiders will say, “We cannot do without churches like this.  This church is channeling so much value into our community that if it were to leave the neighborhood, we would have to raise taxes.” (305)[1]

Things like clean water, dental work, changing business, art, music and publishing for the better may certainly be good for humanity in this life. But is this to be the missio Dei (God’s mission) for the church?  As good as these things may be, I’m convinced that this is a terrible distraction from the true mission of the church.  To clearly understand the mission of the church, let’s look at the early chapters of the book of Acts.

A Biblical Critique of Tim Keller's "Center Church" (pt. 4)

Is Any Culture Predisposed to Aspects of the Truth?

Keller believes that God, by virtue of common grace, has instilled in every culture things that are good and pleasing to Him.  Because of this common grace, Christianity must also praise the culture appropriately with the gospel where the world promotes human flourishing.  Keller says, "Because the city has potential for both human flourishing and human idolatry, we minister with balance, using the gospel to both appreciate and challenge the culture to be in accord with God’s truth. (87)"

This can be seen throughout the three sections of CC, but perhaps never so clearly as the discussion about how to bring offensive gospel doctrines into a culture with the least offense.  Allow me to quote Keller at length:

To enter a culture, another main task is to discern its dominant worldviews or belief systems, because contextualized worldviews or belief systems, because contextualized gospel ministry should affirm the beliefs of the culture wherever it can be done with integrity.  When we enter a culture, we should be looking for two kinds of beliefs.  The first are what I call “A” beliefs, which are beliefs people already hold that, because of God’s common grace, roughly correspond to some of the Bible’s teaching (which we may call “A” doctrines).  However, we will also find “B” beliefs—what may be called ‘deafeater’ beliefs—beliefs of the culture that lead listeners to find some Christian doctrines implausible or overtly offensive.  “B” beliefs contradict Christian truth directly at points we may call “B” doctrines. (123)

Keller goes on to describe the “A” doctrines as logs and “B” doctrines as stones.  In order to get them down the river (his analogy), lash the logs together and float the offensive stones on the logs.  So, Keller’s view of common grace is that God has so revealed Himself that there are areas where every unbelieving culture will naturally enjoy and affirm something that agrees roughly with the truth.  It is these areas which afford the Christian the place to affirm the unbeliever.  According to Keller, finding where we can affirm unbelievers in their unbelief is necessary, or else we will never have power to persuade them of the gospel.  He says,

In our gospel communication, we enter the culture by pointing people to the overlapping beliefs they can easily affirm (123)

… we should take great care to affirm the “A” beliefs and doctrines (124)

Our criticism of the culture will have no power to persuade unless it is based on something that we can affirm in the beliefs and values of that culture. (124)[1]

Examples of “A” doctrines and “B” doctrines were love toward your neighbor and prohibitions on sexual immorality.  The Manhattan culture is declared to embrace loving the neighbor as an “A” doctrine and to reject sexual purity as a “B” doctrine.  A Middle Eastern culture would be exactly the opposite.  How any unbeliever in Manhattan loves his neighbor in the biblical sense[2]—let alone how any unbeliever outside the Manhattan culture has never lusted in the way Jesus prohibits in Matthew 5:27-30—I have no idea.  More than that, appealing to common grace as a basis for affirming the ungodly in their unbelief is a twisted and wicked approach to evangelism.

A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND (pt. 7)

This is part 7 of a series titled, "Regaining Our Focus: A Response to the Social Action Trend in Evangelical Missions"
by two veteran missionaries from Africa.
Specific Biblical Concerns (to the social action trend in evangelicalism)-

7. A Misunderstanding of Jesus’ Ministry and Miracles:

Those who hope to make social action and gospel proclamation two wings of the same bird claim that they are imitating the earthly ministry of Jesus. Jesus, they contend, not only preached repentance, He also focused on relieving the physical needs and the oppression of the economically downtrodden in Palestine. He healed their sicknesses, filled their stomachs, and dropped a coin in the outstretched hands of the poor.

While the Scripture implies that Jesus did express mercy to the poor on a personal level (Matt 26:9; John 13:29), it is clear from the Gospels that Jesus started no orphanages, established no poverty relief funds, no low-cost housing schemes, no well-digging programs, and set no prisoners free (not even John the Baptist). Neither did Jesus instruct or train His disciples to do so. That doesn’t mean that it’s intrinsically wrong for Christians to be involved in such work. But it certainly makes suspect the argument that, based on Jesus’ example, the church should make social action central to her mission. Personal expressions of mercy and church-organized social action programs are not the same thing: Jesus exemplified one, not the other. In fact, the purpose statements of Jesus’ earthly ministry always focused on proclamation and on His substitutionary death for sinners: “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for” (Mark 1:38). “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:43).

A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND IN EVANGELICAL MISSIONS (pt. 4)

This part 4 of a series titled, "Regaining Our Focus: A Response to the Social Action Trend in Evangelical Missions" by two veteran missionaries from Africa.

Specific Critiques (to the social action trend in missions):

"Having surveyed our concerns, we want to highlight eight biblical problems with the social action model of the church and missions. It is unlikely that any single author or ministry embodies all these problems, but for simplicity’s sake we paint with a broad brush.

1. A Redefinition of the Gospel

Social justice advocates are fond of describing the gospel in terms of human flourishing.  The incarnation, they say, was about Christ bringing shalom or general well-being to the human race.  Many evangelicals (without turning away from substitutionary atonement) have adopted this notion enthusiastically: if the gospel is about human flourishing, then any Christian effort that increases that flourishing is gospel ministry. On that basis, building a hospital or an orphanage is just as much a fulfillment of the Great Commission as church planting.

D. A. Carson notes that this redefinition of the gospel is categorically wrong, since the gospel is “the good news of what God has done, not a description of what [Christians] ought to do in consequence. . . . One cannot too forcefully insist on the distinction between the gospel and its entailments.”   Furthermore, to represent the gospel of Jesus Christ as being about the general betterment of unbelieving society is to misrepresent the gospel. 

John MacArthur writes, "Is social reconstruction even an appropriate way for Christians to spend their energies? I recently mentioned to a friend that I was working on a book dealing with sin and our culture’s declining moral climate. He immediately said, “Be sure you urge Christians to get actively involved in reclaiming society. The main problem is that Christians haven’t acquired enough influence in politics, art, and the entertainment industry to turn things around for good.” That, I acknowledge, is a common view held by many Christians. But I’m afraid I don’t agree.. . . . God’s purpose in this world—and the church’s only legitimate commission—is the proclamation of the message of sin and salvation to individuals, whom God sovereignly redeems and calls out of the world.

2. An Overly Realized Eschatology

A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND IN EVANGELICAL MISSIONS (pt. 3)

Concern 2 (to the social action trend in evangelical missions): Is the Underlying Theory Flawed?

While Jesus commanded believers to love their neighbors and to care for the poor, we don’t see that the New Testament church (either by dictate or example) fulfilled that command by organizing itself to carry out social action projects directed at the general betterment of Roman society. In other words, we believe that the theory of social action missions is suspect from the start. If anything, the apostles seemed to avoid social reform projects directed at the world in favor of preaching the gospel to the world.

We ardently believe that Christians can and should be involved in meaningful demonstrations of compassion—everything from giving a sandwich to a homeless person to working at an orphanage. In this article we are dealing with a different issue: the idea that social reform and the gospel are equal partners in Christian mission.  We will develop our reasons for rejecting this dual-track view of the church’s mission in a moment.

Concern 3:  Is the Mission of the Church Being Unintentionally Neglected?

All true evangelicals are committed to keeping the gospel, expository preaching, and the church the main things; however, this becomes difficult to do in the social action model of the church and missions. Social action projects are like black holes— they have a habit of sucking in all the ecclesiastical resources within reach of their gravitational pull. While the theory states that the gospel, preaching, and the church are the main things, in regard to budgets, planning, staff, and effort, what’s actually first is all too clear.

Even the proponents of social action acknowledge this problem. For example, Keller admits, “Churches that . . . try to take on all the levels of doing justice often find that the work of community renewal and social justice overwhelms the work of preaching, teaching and nurturing the congregation."

In response to Keller’s admission, Naylor writes, "Keller speaks as if there is a certain point at which this becomes problematic, but he does not demonstrate how this effect is not already in operation the moment the church becomes involved in this kind of work at all."

A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND IN EVANGELICALISM (pt. 1)

Is this the point of these passages of Scripture?

This series of articles is co-Authored by Joel James, D. Min., Pastor at Grace Fellowship, Pretoria South Africa AND Brian Biedebach, D.Min., Pastor at International Fellowship Bible Church, Lilongwe Malawi.  Both authors have served as missionaries in Africa for over 20 years.

Article Summary- Today churches and missionaries are being told that to imitate the ministry of Jesus they must add social justice to their understanding of the church’s mission. As pastors and missions committees embrace the idea that social action and gospel proclamation are “two wings of the same bird,” the kind of work that they send their missionaries to do changes, and this has a negative effect on world missions. This article highlights those negative effects in an African context, offers historical, practical, and biblical critiques of the trend, and redirects the church’s attention to understanding and fulfilling the Great Commission in the way the apostles did in Acts and the Epistles.

Introduction- "Evangelical missions in Africa is changing. Or more accurately, it has changed.  In the past, the bulk of the theologically conservative missionaries in Africa came to do church planting and leadership training. No longer. Today many of the new missionaries being sent are focused on social relief, with the church tacked on as a theological addendum. By all appearances there has been a mega-shift in evangelical missions away from church planting and leadership training toward social justice or social action.

Social action and social justice are elastic, elusive, and basically interchangeable terms that include, for example, caring for the poor and promoting just government that keeps the wealthy from strong– arming the vulnerable.