Evangelism with finesse

What might evangelism be like if we intentionally asked ourselves questions about God's requirements of love and justice in our actions? There would be a constant consciousness of what we ought to do under God's law, juxtaposed with what the person we are speaking to needs. What a tension.

Love and justice each reside within us and continually inform us in every decision, each advocating for their side. Remember that God acts in perfect love and justice always, and if that sounds complex - well, God is complex, and he calls his people to imitate him in that emotional complexity. We are well advised to "listen to both ambassadors [love and justice] and then arrive at a decision that will be most pleasing to their Master." So, okay. Our first object is not to please ourselves or even our audience; it's to please God. At the same time, part of pleasing God is being kind and sensitive to unbelievers.

I don't know if it's like this for anybody else, but to me it is incredibly daunting to realize, yet perfectly, maddeningly clear, that this sort of evangelism requires the utmost care, prayer, reliance on the Spirit, intelligence, and nuance. It's evangelism with finesse. And... I think that's exactly the example we are called to follow. I think that's true sensitivity - to God's requirements even more than man's preferences.

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings."
_I Corinthians 9.19-23

Cultural infiltration

(Adapted from an essay I wrote; I didn't feel like going through and making it more conversational, so it's kind of formal. Also, the ideas written here are inspired by this book.)

When considering how to reach those not merely hostile but indifferent to the Christian gospel, one of the best long-term tactics we can use may be indirect communication through the use of art and metaphor. One of the problems that I have personally seen in evangelism is that when a person shows himself or herself not to immediately reject the gospel, Christians take that as an explicit invitation to immediately invade and renovate the person's belief system.

But a person being potentially open to Christianity does not mean that she may not also be open to a thousand other belief systems, or that she does not hold dearly to the belief system she currently holds. There is more work yet to be done before the soil is ready. Indifference to God is a far cry from acceptance and especially love. It is, however, closely related to ignorance, and this is why creative, indirect communication - in a macro perspective, a systematic infiltration of Christianity into the culture - would be a huge asset to Christians in communicating their faith to otherwise indifferent persons in our current society. It would be a re-education of our society.

Many intellectuals today lament the lack of passion and growth of ignorance in present-day America; it is widely agreed upon that we are a culture constantly seeking entertainment. What better way for the Christian message to somehow capture our attention than to succinctly, creatively package it?

Now some churches, instead of trying to infiltrate the culture, have merely bowed to the world's changing values, and instead of making converts have simply converted Christianity into a useless message. Even agnostic Carl Stecher makes notice of this, and others are sure to make the same observations: "In effect, if not literally, the Bible is expugated, bowdlerized, but the God who emerges from this process is not the God of our fathers." Thus the 'creative' strategy has drawn criticism from conservative believers because it 'makes church into a commercial.' I completely agree. However, what I propose is not for the entire gospel to be made into a thirty-second television spot. I do not even advocate such methods to be used in churches. When I refer to spreading the "Christian message" in our culture, I mean a general propagation of Christian values and concepts into the national consciousness. This is not an end in itself, but rather a way of preparing the soil - sowing - to give people a context for the gospel.

So I am not suggesting we make the gospel into a commercial and expect people to be saved through such means. Rather, perhaps a thirty-second television spot, or twenty-minute show, or two-hour movie, can be used to convey a subtle yet attractive Christian message - not the entire gospel, but a small piece of it. The idea of sacrifice. Of redemption. Of moderation. Of obedience to authority. Of truth. Of miracles. All these are becoming more and more foreign to unbelievers; who will remind them, if not us? And if we do not, the gospel will become increasingly unintelligible, until we finally become... well, Western Europe.

If many Christians were to redirect their efforts to such endeavors, and there were suddenly a proliferation of Christian-reminscent popular media, what might the effect be on people's overall worldview? The plan might take years, but it would be worth it - especially since as Tim Downs notes in his book Finding Common Ground, the secular world has been executing this exact plan for years to a great harvest; and "while we measure the bounty of this generation, they prepare to gather the next."

When physicians are the sick.

Aspiring abortion doctors drawn to embattled field

I have been thinking about abortion lately, and have had a few conversations about it. It occurred to me that while most students (sadly, not all) at Biola naturally and strongly are repulsed by the very idea, this is not so in the real world. In fact, there are many in society who are diametrically opposed to all that "anti-abortion" people have to say. According to abortion rights activists, (1) they aren't killing people because fetuses aren't people; and (2) even if fetuses are human, doctors and patients get to decide who lives and who doesn't. Whom we allow into the world is a matter of convenience. Really, the lines are becoming clearer. These days it seems fewer people are using the former argument, and more are beginning to use the latter. Talk about a culture of death, as Al Mohler puts it.

Anyway, the LA Times article I posted above made me so angry, and sickened. Apparently, performing abortions is now a sort of crusade, a civil rights movement, dangerous and heroic and vehemently pursued. What horrifies me most is that the doctors who routinely perform the gruesome task not only become callous toward the "procedure" but feel moral obligation and even self-righteousness as they continue to perform it. Good has become evil; evil, good; and those who are supposed to bring life to the sick, weak, and dying have become messengers of death. Who will protect us?

I ask again now, as I ask so often - rhetorically, in part, but I really do wish there were a sensible answer: Why has this evil become so good in their eyes?

I simply can't fathom any other answer than this: sin has entered the world. Thank God, so has Jesus.

One statement, two considerations

"God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is in the silence of a mother who has infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives. God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war. God is in the debris of wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them."

It's a simple but powerful statement, I believe. The one quoted above I mean. And completely true. God cares and grieves for injustices, tragedies, and effects of sin such as these. It might sound a bit maudlin, but I don't think it's in the least trivial or unemotional for Him. God is never mastered by his passions, ever, but he is a God of complex and deep, deep emotion evoked by the condition of his people. The Spirit groans, Jesus wept, God gets angry. He also rejoices and laughs and delights. We can do that to him. Not because we wield influence but because he cares for you. That's my first point.

I also would like to point out, secondly, that the above quotation is from a speech at the 2006 National Prayer Breakfast. Already I feel skepticism rising, at least from myself. And the speech was given by a man with long hair and only one name - Bono. No eye rolling, please. Consider: whatever you might think of Bono's politics, his professed beliefs, his accent, his music, his hair... he's right. I can think of nothing about his words that is untrue about God. God is good and great enough to bestow common grace on all people, even those who may never be saved. All lives, all work, all good deeds are of value to him. As Augustine said, all truth is God's truth. I hope that God helps me to be humble enough to accept profound insights and beautiful Truth from anyone though whom he chooses to speak, even if that particular spokesperson isn't someone I consider qualified. This sounds like a hard thing to accept, but after thinking through it I see nothing unbiblical or unreasonable about it.

This is hard to say because I feel alternately cliche and sacriligious... but thanks, Bono.

Now if you please, you may visit the ONE campaign and see what they're up to lately.

Invisible Children news.

Here (ABC News) and here (Pasadena Star News) are two articles about the recent "Displace Me" human PR campaign (I don't know what else to call it) for Invisible Children. Good stuff, and I'm glad they're getting some public, even national (if somewhat hidden) attention.

Biblical generosity: a compendium

Is great plenty always a blessing? Are we a generous people? What does true generosity mean?

Gen 12:2
And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.

Proverbs 11:28
Whoever trusts in his riches will fall,but the righteous will flourish like a green leaf.

Psalm 112
1Praise the LORD!
Blessed is the man who fears the LORD,
who greatly delights in his commandments!
2His offspring will be mighty in the land;
the generation of the upright will be blessed.
3Wealth and riches are in his house,
and his righteousness endures forever.
4Light dawns in the darkness for the upright;
he is gracious, merciful, and righteous.
5It is well with the man who deals generously and lends;
who conducts his affairs with justice.
6For the righteous will never be moved;
he will be remembered forever.
7He is not afraid of bad news;
his heart is firm, trusting in the LORD.
8His heart is steady; he will not be afraid,
until he looks in triumph on his adversaries.
9He has distributed freely; he has given to the poor;
his righteousness endures forever;
his horn is exalted in honor.
10The wicked man sees it and is angry;
he gnashes his teeth and melts away;
the desire of the wicked will perish!

Luke 14:13
"But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just."

Matthew 20:14
"'Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' So the last will be first, and the first last."

2 Corinthians 8:1-5
We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own free will, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints--and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us.

Nehemiah 5:14
Moreover, from the time that I [Nehemiah] was appointed to be their governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year to the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes the king, twelve years, neither I nor my brothers ate the food allowance of the governor.

Esther 2:18
Then the king gave a great feast for all his officials and servants; it was Esther's feast. He also granted a remission of taxes to the provinces and gave gifts with royal generosity.

1 Chronicles 26:9
The people rejoiced at the willing response of their leaders, for they had given freely and wholeheartedly to the LORD. David the king also rejoiced greatly.

This is not filler material.

So I did plan on doing the first post about the topic I mentioned yesterday, but I ran out of time today as there were more urgent things to attend to. Like... school.

But I did have time to read Challies.com, as usual. And somewhat less usually (but not really surprisingly) he had not just one but two substantial posts in the same day that are of particular interest to me.

The first has to do with stewardship, specifically "frugality." College students are funny to me; sometimes we are so incredibly frugal as to be embarrassing (even unethical), and other times we may waste our not-always-very-hard-earned money on pretty dumb things. So, of course, I often struggle with or think carefully about using my resources wisely as a college student. On ther other hand, basically everyone agrees that we should be wise with our finances, and many would say that we are to live "wartime lifestyles" in order to give as generously as possible. But I wonder if the rules about what's okay to buy or not buy are allowed to change at all when I'm older if, perchance, I ever become a bit more financially secure than I am now. Tim Challies seems to think they do, and presents it very thoughtfully. Sweet.

The second post is a shorter one about the modern-day reality of healing miracles. Whether or not you believe that healing is a "spiritual gift" given to individuals or not, I can't think of a reason any Christian would not believe that prayer is powerful and that God can and does still miraculously heal, outside of mere modern medicine. But sometimes we act like praying for a miracle is silly. Maybe some of us don't need this reminder, but some of us do. Oh Western rationalism, God never said we had better only ask for things which were likely and within the scope of our experience. "Pain and suffering are not part of the kingdom."

No, I'm not merely stalling for time; I am stalling for time AND posting things I find worthwhile. So there.

The moral obligation of humanitarian aid

"Americans are blessed with great plenty; we are a generous people and we have a moral obligation to assist those who are suffering from poverty, disease, war and famine."
_Adam Schiff, US Representative

Are we really morally obligated to assist those who are suffering? What a question. In the next few posts (hopefully to conclude by Friday) I'd like to think about this question, using Scripture, conscience, philosophy, and whatever other threads strike my fancy. My goal is to avoid heresy. Yes, ambitious. More ambitiously, my goal is to do the hard work of searching, praying, and thinking through this and come to some conclusions about how to respond to this sort of statement.

To be considered:
Is great plenty always a blessing? Are we a generous people? What does true generosity mean? Are we morally obligated to give? What is moral obligation? Does such an obligation, if it exists, come with qualifications? If so, what are they? Perhaps most crucially, what sort of assistance are we obligated to give?

Fear not, little flock

"And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.

"Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
_Luke 6

I just posted in my other blog about fear of man and how, as Christians, we need not fear anyone anymore - either for fear of being judged or being otherwise harmed. It got me thinking that, perhaps, fear comprises a great part of what holds us back from giving and serving.

Whether you call it suspicion or selfishness or worry or love of money or, sometimes, "financial prudence," I'm calling it fear, because that is what Jesus calls it here. Since the beginning of the chapter, he's been talking about both fear of man (hypocrisy, fearing those who kill the body), and money/possessions. Strange how he intermingles the two. After this passage, he's going to turn the conversation to preparing for the Kingdom. But right now, he's telling people not to "be worried" about earthly provisions, for two reasons - such cares are what godless Gentiles do and aren't becoming of God's people; and God knows perfectly well what you need and doesn't need your help. Then Jesus gives the famous line: "Instead, seek his kingdom."

So at first it seems like Jesus is just talking about us not fretting over bills or getting into a frenzy over sales at the mall. But then he started talking about the kingdom, which seems a little serious. Is he saying that, in some way, seeking the kingdom is somehow opposed to seeking worldly possessions? It looks like it... because he takes it even more seriously in the next sentence, which is one of my favorite quotations from Jesus' ministry:

Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

Let that sit with you for a minute. I love it. "Little flock." It strikes me as fond, protective, maybe sympathetic. (Sheep aren't that bright, remember.) "Your Father's good pleasure" - God loves the fact that he's giving us the Kingdom. He doesn't begrudgingly give us gifts, because it's his prerogative. He's GOD; and yet he is never stingy with us. Even though most of the time we have no idea how valuable his gifts are. Sheep.

And that's the point, I think. Jesus goes on to give the "therefore" (imperative flows out of the indicative) - "Sell your possessions, and give...." Jesus is saying, I'm asking you to do something that you're going to think is your undoing, but don't be scared! You don't have to hold so tightly to what you have. If you give freely as God has given to you, you won't be losing a thing, because your Father's possessions are never depleted, and you get to inherit it all.

Fear not! For it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

To dole or not to dole?

Should I give money to people on the street who ask for it?

What a question. My answer is Yes, and the above link is a qualification of that Yes. I guess it's a "Yes, but...."

Quite honestly, I don't completely agree with EVERYTHING the Internet Monk had to say about giving. He seems a little too reluctant (not out of pure selfishness, I don't think) and errs on the side of prudence, where I would err on the side of... what's the opposite of prudence? Extravagance? Yes, that's a good word. After all, I think that Christ's love for us is nothing if not lavish.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved-- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Of course, in God's case it was a little different - he was sure of the effectual nature of his actions; he is omniscient and omnipotent and elects people to salvation; and unlike him, we are not the owners of our resources but only stewards. Yet at the same time I think there is something to be said, again, for erring (if one must err) on the side of extravagance. We may not be able to predict the outcome like God can, but we may certainly trust him to bless our blessing of others.

Wisdom is still a necessary part of the equation, however, which is why I'm linking to iMonk in the first place. It's a good reminder if you tend to be a "bleeding heart liberal" as my dad loves to call me. He thinks it's teasing, but I think it's true.

So there you are. The answer is, "Discernment." What a cop out answer. :]

Abortion abolition.

The LA Times on banning partial-birth abortions.

"The legal battle turned on the question of whether a woman and her doctor, or elected lawmakers, should decide on abortion."

Ugh. I hope it's clear how sick this is. And how ludicrous - a fight over who gets to choose the ones who get to choose whether a baby should be allowed to live or not. And the most obvious absurdity of all: people are not only inconvenienced nor annoyed, but angry, belligerent, combative, because some people don't want them to kill children. I wish I could doubt, but I don't believe I can, that there are actually people in this country - especially women - who would become martyrs, who would give up their life in order to ensure that their right to kill their babies is preserved. It gives me such chills to think about it. The bad kind.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, currently the only female member of the Supreme Court, opined that the decision "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court."

She's right, you know. The Supreme Court is looking like a bunch of hypocrites right now. Well, in the strictest sense they are hypocrites. But I'm not about to argue that they should allow partial-birth abortions for the sake of consistency and loyalty to their past decisions. No, on the contrary, our wish and aim and prayer should be that they reverse Roe v. Wade completely, that their eyes are opened to the legalized atrocities of the last forty years.

This may sound overly romanticized, but this generation are the new abolitionists - and might I put forth that while only a few Christians were politically active in reversing slavery laws, I'm certain that many others of the devout prayed faithfully for the abolition of the travesties against all bearers of God's image. I'm not saying we all have to be protesters with signs; ll I'm really saying is that we have to care, and bring those cares to God.

Even when it's not in the news, it matters to God. It always matters.

You can't save the world.

Only Jesus can save the world. I'm serious. Only Jesus and Jesus only.

However, a lot of people are trying to save Darfur.

Including these guys. Which is really cool. I really hope all of these college campaigns don't die out as soon as we all realize that the real world doesn't take kindly to creative social-spiritual activism.

This is what they have to say:

"Artists' expressions have sparked movements against social
injustice for centuries. We believe it can happen again.
Film, Music, Literature - creative expression - moves
the deepest parts of a person's mind and body and can often
speak clearer than the longest speech by any politician
or the longest sermon by any pastor. So, we are committed
to allowing our talents and the talents of the
artists who will participate in our concerts to move tremendously
across nations and minds and to end the injustice
that is being seen in Africa and other parts of the world.
Hear the music and then go end the injustice."

I like the last sentence the best. Money won't save Darfur. Concerts won't save Darfur. Prayer without compassionate sacrificial action on someone's part won't save Darfur. People have to go end the injustice, and they MUST bring Jesus with them.

You can't save the world and neither can I.

Will you go? Will I go? What are we going to do?

Don't talk about race. Don't be afraid to talk about race.

Once again I'm going to link elsewhere. Have I made it clear enough I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to these issues? I don't, I really don't. But I try, and I try to learn from others.

Today's link is from a pastor in Grand Cayman (like, the island) named Thabiti Anyabwile. I don't read his blog regularly but I have read it in the past, and he's referenced by a circle of other good bloggers quite a bit. I respect his opinions and thoughts; he is a good minister of the gospel in general, and is also helpful when it comes to thinking about multicultural and racial issues - perhaps more than your average conservative or Reformed pastor, who, let's face it, tends to be white and suburban. Nothing inherently wrong there, but it doesn't always lend itself to much diversity and there are obvious biases at times.

In this post, he gives Ten Tips for Talking about Race.

1. Don't talk about race.

But if and when you do talk about race...

2. ...don't tell people you're "color blind."

3. ...be sure to empathize wherever you can.

4. ...be sure to call injustice injustice.

5. ...be honest.

6. ...be patient.

7. ...please fight against the tendency to stereotype.

8. ...accept legitimate responsibility but refuse illegitimate guilt.

9. ...go ahead and offend.

10. ...root the conversation in the Gospel.

Here is a man who understands the delicacy of, and absolute need for nuance in, "racial" (which I believe, and which it seems he also believes, is actually cultural) discussions. He gives some good communication principles which are as far as I know not only good for talking about race but talking about any difficult topic. And I'm glad he admits that race is a difficult topic - God knows that too many people, tired of political correctness, want to pretend that it isn't so complicated as we make it out to be - without being afraid of it. I can think of no topic, especially one so socially relevant in the eyes of the culture we have been placed in, that Christians should ever be afraid to discuss. So here you go.

Linking outside the box.

Here is an article, written by one of my comm professors (for whom my respect and admiration increases basically on a weekly basis), that expresses much more cogently and succinctly the sentiment that I'm trying to get across with this blog. This is the kind of thing that makes me consider to pursuing communication studies in the future.

"Linking Outside the Box" by Dr. Tim Muehlhoff

If you can't do it right, don't do it at all?

A while ago I posted about the Social Gospel movement of the early 20th century and summarized its accomplishments, goals, and attitudes as best I could in brief. I also mentioned what went wrong with it, but looking back I think I was a bit too brief and yes, too generous.

I say that because basically everyone, regardless of belief about these groups, agrees that out of the Social Gospel came the "mainline" denominations as we know them today... Wesleyan/Methodism, the Episcopal church, PCUSA to name a few names. And personally, I am not in a hurry to see my church or any other still-orthodox church or denomination follow in their increasingly secular, humanist, pluralistic and otherwise heretical footsteps. I do realize that not every person or even every church in these traditions is "heretical" and preaching a false gospel, but on the whole the leadership of these movements, and their public perception, show a neglect of God's truth and a trend toward human-centered religion of popular sentiment, politics, and empty tradition. I do not think I need to expound this too much; only look at current events and the rapidly declining attendance of mainline churches in spite of their growing ecumenism.

My question, then, is this: if, in spite of the good intentions of good Christians in the Social Gospel movement, the most participatory denominations became the most theologically liberal denominations, what does this mean to the church today? In other words, did something simply go fundamentally wrong with the approach and methods of the Social Gospel, or is it an inherent fact that when the church as an institution gets involved in social causes, the gospel will be compromised? Is the Social Gospel an instructive lesson or a foreboding cautionary tale?

To be clear, there is no doubt in my mind that as individuals, God's people are all called to help the needy and oppressed and to live sacrificially. Likewise, governments and rules are definitely ministers of God's justice on earth and are held accountable to wise administration of such. It would seem to follow that the church, local and universal, must also help alieve suffering, show no partiality, and the like.

But it seems to me that for some reason when the church as an institution takes on an agenda other than equipping the saints and spreading the gospel, things often go terribly wrong. (Not just during the Social Gospel era - Crusades, anyone?) I wonder if this is because we are fallen beings, or because this is an exceptionally difficult task - or if we ought not to do this at all.

So when a social cause arises in a community - the ecosystem is endangered, or a man is wrongfully imprisoned, or the county is frantically looking for a way to curb the AIDS epidemic - is it the place of Christ Church of Wherever, led by the elders and backed by church money, to step in? Even more uncertain, is it the place of a denomination - or political-evangelical coalition of whatever sort - to step in? Or are we better off tackling these things simply as Christians under no particular banner but Christ and his kingdom?

Yet another thing I'm not sure about, but that needs to be addressed in our generation. If political-evangelical coalitions are okay, we need to do a better job with them. If they aren't, we're in trouble.

Ben Stein's money

I never knew Ben Stein was an economist, but this article credits him as being so, and I suppose I have to believe them. I thought he was just Ferris Bueller's teacher. Whatever he is, he also must be stinkin rich, since he had a game show in which he allegedly gave away his own money as prizes, and he is also said (by aforementioned article) to live in Beverly Hills AND Malibu, which last time I checked do not border each other, so you can rule out any possible explanation of a single residence.

Anyway, he is also (and I think I was vaguely aware of this) socially-politically-economically conscious, active, what, and occasionally writes about it as he did for The American Spectator. As far as I can tell this is a conservative-leaning publication, but this particular article wasn't really partisan. In fact, it blamed no one and took blame for nothing. It simply stated the facts. And, in an understated but clear way, it said that the facts are Not Good.

Unlike this article, I hope Christians not only know and state and condemn the way things are, but seek biblical solutions. I hope Christians don't exclaim "Americans sure spend a lot of money on nonsense!" and then (gleefully or guiltily) go spend more money on nonsense. I hope we don't think that the solution to poverty is to make all the rich people poorer, or to tell the poor to go home and stop complaining. I hope none of us read that middle-class Americans go into tons of debt because they can't keep up their standard of living otherwise, and come away with the lesson that the government should raise minimum wage and lower prices of iPods. Maybe it isn't the wages but our self-invented standard of "good living" that is impossible to work with. And maybe that means we can change something out how we live, and set a good example, and teach other what it means to please God with our lives and resources. Just a thought.

But you can read the article anyway. It's a simple summary on the state of affairs in America for those who haven't thus far been keeping score.

Your Father sees in secret

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
"Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."
_Matthew 6.1-4

Hypocrisy and help.

“Until the United States changes its own policies of holding detainees indefinitely, in secret prisons and without basic rights, it cannot credibly be viewed as a world human rights leader." _Spokesman for Amnesty International

The U.S. released its annual human rights report today. This is our government's state-of-global-humanity address, as well as a sort of worst-of list. The worst of 2006 was declared to be the Darfur genocide.

I wonder how true this spokesman's reaction is. I know it's true that the U.S. has come under fire for some of its practices with prisoners. Just yesterday I read a New York Times article written by a man who had been mistakenly detained by the CIA for months and months in terrible conditions, only to be dumped somewhere sans supplies or apology when they figured out the mistake. There are other, more common, less dramatic cases documented, even admitted by the President.

Still, the U.S. hasn't conducted any genocides lately, or ever. The government is not guilty of "widespread killing of civilians, rape as a tool of war, systematic torture, robbery and recruitment of child soldiers." But does the fact that we're "not as bad" mean we can act self-righteous toward "really bad" governments, like Sudan, while ignoring our own faults? No. Do we have a responsibility to speak out against Darfur genocide? Yes. Should we have pure motives while doing so? Yes. Do the children who are suffering in the meantime care more about our motives than about stopping the genocide? No.

Complicated issues that I don't have answers for.

"Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you: break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your prosperity." _Daniel, to Nebuchadnezzar

How does the gospel, with its message of repentance, of healing and cleansing, of a new kind of kingdom - all on a spiritual level, but certainly with future implications for the physical dimension as well - have any bearing on government integrity and Darfur? Well, all I can say is that like all good Christian civic leaders (and there have been quite a few, though not as many as we might wish), we must strive to make the gospel permeate our society. Not on a superficial moralistic level; not simply through public policy. Minds are change when hearts are changed when God's people ask God to change them.

Feeling rich?

Making rich people feel guilty for being rich annoys me. And Americans' addiction to feeling guilty for being rich annoys me even more. Know why? It assigns blame where there isn't necessarily blame and avoids assigning responsibility where responsibility should be stressed.

The thing about awareness is that in the "Information Age" you have to be of sub-average intelligence NOT to be aware that Americans are rich compared to the rest of the world (or that AIDS is a global problem, or that poverty has not been eradicated, etc.). If you know how to use the internet and watch TV and aren't completely self-absorbed, you have to work pretty hard not to know these things.

And from what I've seen in my generation there is this obsession with KNOWING, and, as I mentioned, an addiction to feeling guilty. We see a tiny bit of what the rest of the world is like and we feel guilty for being Westerners. So we have to do penance. We need to know and repeat the statistic that Americans spend more annually on ice cream than some countries' GDP, so that we can feel fat and ridiculously extravagant. But we either stop buying ice cream, which doesn't do anybody much good, or we keep buying ice cream anyway, which doesn't do anybody much good and makes us even fatter.

Enter Global Rich List, here to help subsidize our addiction. Enter your yearly salary in the currency of choice and find that if you make an average college student income (about $5000) you're in the top 14% of the world; if you make the average American income, you're in the top 3%. Come one, come all.

Wouldn't it be nice if instead of gathering round the computer screen to feel rich - to feel simultaneously blessed and guilty - we took our oodles of wealth and started to bless others? I think the real reason we feel guilty about being rich is that we weren't meant to be comfortable with sitting on our blessings. If we are called God's people, his blessings to us should quiver in our hands and tremble in our pockets with anticipation. We should be unable to wait to start blessings others with it.

Nobody asked us if we wanted to be rich Americans. And nobody asked us if we wanted the responsibility to bless others. And we certainly didn't ask for those things ourselves. But those are precisely the privileges that God has given us.

Have I any idea what I'm doing?

I haven't been posting lately, mainly because of the annual Resolved Conference held last week in Long Beach. I was there from Friday to Monday, and spent the rest of last week thinking about all I heard and saw and sang about. I think that as long as I keep going to Resolved (perhaps only another year, perhaps longer) it will serve as a nice recalibration tool for me. It's not often I hear preaching as expository and "fundamentalist" as as Resolved. It keeps me from neglecting good doctrine, while giving me an opportunity to assess how Reformed theology and compassion, humility, and charity can and should interact.

Anyway, enough excuses. I hope to post regularly from here until spring break.

So, my initial question: have I any idea what I'm doing? With this blog, with my faith, with the topic of social justice. What am I really in for? Integrating Christian doctrine, and specifically the Christian gospel, and even more specifically from a Reformed perspective, with social work is hard. Really hard. It's asking a lot. It would take a lot of personal sacrifice. It would take a lot of local church involvement. It would take a lot of Christian community commitment.

Take the issue of sanitation and hygiene in Africa. We could go and give them fresh water wells and magic filtering drinking straws and ways to take out their trash and not contaminate living areas. Let's say, in theory, this would reduce infant/child mortality by an impressive untold percentange. But wait - the mothers of these children have little in life to hope for. More living little ones also mean more mouths to feed. Little formal education means little understanding of why sanitation is crucial.

So we must not only give materially (or, in American fashion, send out $33 a month) but educate mothers about the importance of sanitary living conditions. We must convince them that it will improve their quality of life in a desirable and tangible way. We must teach them how to use what is available to them - we must teach them to teach their children. But wait - what good does quality or quantity of life do when life consists of only bleak options? Why should the mothers make cleanliness and health priorities when there are more pressing matters like having shelter and daily bread?

So we must not only educate and try to impart hope, but also give a reason to hope. We must not simply treat symptoms but give them The Cure! (Not the 80s band, the gospel.) As John Piper said on Monday at Resolved, "If you don’t care about the spiritual disease, social action is a lie." A mere bandaid or suture is not love or compassion.

You see now how much work this takes. Maybe not anything an individual can do. In fact, certainly not. And certainly not even anything a community or a nation or even the worldwide church can do, because though saved we are still but lazy, selfish, sinful people with our own problems and children and sicknesses.

But we do have Jesus Christ. We do have the Spirit of power and comfort. We do have a call to come and die. And I say this only with utmost fear (what if it comes true!), but... I do hope I'll summon the strength to go and die.

Yay for House Joint Resolution 20

"Congress has gone the extra mile to fight poverty by not only protecting the $1 billion that was at stake, but by allocating an additional $450 million in poverty-focused development assistance.

"There are few places in the U.S. budget where dollars translate so directly into lives saved.... H.J. Res. 20 provided $4.5 billion dollars to fight global AIDS and tuberculosis, another $248 million to fight malaria, and an additional $75 million for refugee assistance. The AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria funding alone represents the largest amount ever committed by the United States to fight three of the world’s most devastating diseases. With this funding, over 350,000 people will receive life-saving AIDS medicines, over one million anti-malaria bed nets will be distributed, and over 120,000 people will receive treatment for tuberculosis.

"This funding is a demonstration of genuine leadership in global development and American security.... an opportunity to the world's poorest people by giving them the tools and the perseverance to fight back against extreme poverty."

from One.org

read H.J. Res. 20 here

The Social Gospel movement, part 3

Two propositions I gleaned from the Social Gospel

Proposition #1: You can be a bleeding-heart liberal, without being theologically liberal.

Let me explain.

When I say "bleeding-heart liberal," I don't mean you support homosexual marriages or abortion. I mean you can honestly care about the environment and global warning. You can care about prisoners' well-being. You can care about the poor and even be angry at those who oppress and take advantage, even if they are a corporation or government. You - yes you - can be wary of capitalism. You could, potentially, care about being kind to animals. And, like some bleeding-hearts, you might even think that War Is Not the Answer.

Personally I think you could even vote Democrat if you felt you had to.

I say all of this in spite of a lot of empirical evidence to the contrary, though. But based on reason and biblical truth alone, it certainly is possible. I really believe that. If you want proof that God (even the "Old Testament version") is a flaming (literally), socialist, bleeding-heart liberal, click here for a sampling of the biblical data.

Proposition #2: It's hard to be a bleeding-heart liberal without being theologically liberal.

Like I said, a lot of empirical evidence says that. Look at what happened to the Social Gospel movement.

What did happen? On the surface level, the answer is simply questionable or just plain bad theology. For instance, a lot of Social Gospel activists had a post-millennial eschatology. According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know), "That is they believed the Second Coming could not happen until humankind rid itself of social evils by human effort." Not only is practically no one post-millennialist today, but this is a very strange outlook on human effort and our sin nature. Nothing is ever going to be perfect or even close to perfect until this world passes away. Things will likely get worse before they get better. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight til the end. That is called integrity and perseverance and hope. Good theology is faith in God's power, not our own, to bring the kingdom of God. This is just one example of being motivated by skewed thinking.

In addition, they partnered with a lot of unbelievers to combat social justice. This is probably one of the best things Christians can do in (I'm guessing) 80% of such cases. But it can be dangerous if you care more about "the fight" than the One you are fighting for. (I hope there to be a blog post about this dichotomy in the future.) Some churches and Christians became ecumenical in beliefs and interests rather than simply in scope of opportunity. The church became just another social activist, another political figure.

In the term "social gospel" the head of the phrase is "gospel," of which there is one and only one. We can't afford to lose that identity. We should be interested in people and justice, but in the end, there is only one real, all-encompassing interest and that is God. God is the gospel.

Remember, Jesus was not the political, social, and economic revolutionary the Jews thought he would be. He was in a way, but not the way they wanted him. That's why the Jews by and large missed the kingdom. Don't miss it.

The Social Gospel movement, part 2

Yesterday I wrote about the history of the Social Gospel as an American evangelical movement or consciousness at the turn of the 20th century. I wanted to give an idea of why it happened, and a preview of what it did. Today I'd like to explain a bit more about what it did (and didn't) accomplish, and what we could learn from it.

Here are a few characteristics of the Social Gospel's actions:

1. It attacked a wide variety of social problems, including poverty, inequality, alcohol (sometimes its abuse and sometimes just the thing itself), crime, prison conditions, poor working conditions, child labor, racial tension, slums and ghettos, bad hygiene, poor education systems, and the dangers of war. Abortion and homosexuality weren't rampant then as they are today, and Christians were able to disperse to all corners of society to bring aid.

There are thankfully still Christians tackling all these evils, but abortion and homosexuality seem to be all that get publicized. Who is at fault for that public perception matters less than what Christians do to consciously counteract the stereotype. (On the other hand, another lesson is that many battles are worth fighting; some [like Prohibition] might not be.)

2. The intellectuals behind the Social Gospel were often interested in economic theory and, to an extent, a form of socialism (Christian Socialism was born in this time). The Social Gospel also was a defender of libery and democracy. Capitalism was viewed not necessarily as evil but often as an unforgiving system that required human intervention to prevent it from becoming a menace.

I think a lot of people in my generation are tired of the assumed Christian-Republican-Patriot-Capitalist equivalence. Capitalism takes advantage of the reality of human nature quite well. It is also, in some senses, very "fair" by distributing wealth according to success. However, Christians know that in the Bible, blessings are not to be hoarded but shared. We should also recognize, as the Social Gospel did, that capitalism is an inherently unforgiving system that in its strictest form does not provide for mercy.

We should be wise, not submitting to a tyrannical socialism while still realizing the Biblical mandate for unselfish compassion. Unlike the Christian Socialists, I personally have less faith in government's influence, and I feel that distribution of resources is an individual responsibility even more than it is a government responsibility. So while we may rightly desire our government to operate on Christian principles, if it does not we shouldn't follow suit but give all the more to compensate.

3. Both men and women were active and visible in social work. Women showed strength and were agents of mercy to many, like Jane Addams, Ellen Gates Starr and Dorothy Day. Later in the 1930s it shifted from being a predominantly white middle-class movement to having black activists as well.

It's important for everyone to participate in community and compassionate causes. Mercy is not only women's work; politics are not the only acceptable way for men (and only men) to care and make a difference. I don't know if the Social Gospel accomplished this, but for us, I think the ideal would be a group of socially-minded Christians with the same demographics as the general population - both sexes, all ages and races and socioeconomic classes. No one would be able to mistake our reason for gathering; social justice wouldn't be mistaken for a women's cause, a black cause, a middle class cause, or a youth cause. Our sole distinguishing characteristic would be Christ and his kingdom, and the world just might be forced to notice and listen.

4. Above all, the Social Gospel movement was a time in which America saw Christians publicly take the lead in seeking to alleviate social issues. Not everyone who worked with these ministries were Christians, but to a large extent Christians were organizers and playmakers.

Maybe most important of all. A main criticism of the Social Gospel movement is that it lost its focus on the Kingdom of God as its main goal. It sometimes turned the gospel from being primarily spiritual with physical benefits, to primarily physical with a spiritual option. It also elevated the "human" in "humanitarian" and did not elevate God as publicly as he should have been. However, it would be unfair to say that these weren't true Christians or that the gospel was not proclaimed. It was, in sweeping ways. And the world noticed. Meanwhile, today Americans think Christians are "mean." And the Social Gospel's shortcomings are benefits to us who can look back and take precautions not to let it happen this time. So why should Christians be afraid to be social activists once again?

We have let social causes become "liberal" causes instead of kingdom causes. How tragic! It's going to take a lot of work for us to reclaim compassion and justice as part of God's kingdom, which is what they really are. But imagine if we not only started to join movements and organizations but gain trust and become leaders. Those who lead, those who make the cause they fight for nearest to their heart and God's heart, are the ones who can influence the motivation and ideology for WHY we fight in the first place. And that reason is the gospel - which is what the world needs most. So let's take action.

The Social Gospel movement, part 1

"The great ends of the church are
the proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind;
the shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God;
the maintenance of divine worship;
the preservation of truth;
the promotion of social righteousness;
and the exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world."

_United Presbyterian Church of North America, The Book of Order Chapter 1 Preliminary Principles, 1910

This is the first of a two-or-three-part post about the Social Gospel movement in history, and the ways and extent to which it's relevant to the timeless truth and blessings of the Christian gospel. I also hope that, for myself and for anyone who reads this, I can clarify why I would adopt the term "social gospel" (lowercase letters) for this blog.

The Social Gospel movement, with capital letters, refers to a mostly Protestant Christian movement around the turn of the last century. You could say it lasted until Prohibition (one of its more dubious achievements), but you could also argue that its essence lasted until the American Civil Rights era in the 1960s. Maybe, just maybe, part of its legacy was continued by the hippie Jesus Movement into the 1970s, although at that point we can say with some certainty that it was more of a derailed train. At any rate, the quotation above, which is still part of PCUSA's denominational constitution, can be considered the Social Gospel's unofficial manifesto.

Actually, the Social Gospel was no single organized campaign and had no official (or even central unofficial) leaders at the time. It was more of a consciousness among what we'd now call Evangelical Christians. A consciousness of what, I'll talk about more tomorrow; but anyhow, this consciousness grew out of the rapidly changing (and often deteriorative) social conditions of the Industrial Revolution. It came at a time when the awkwardly maturing United States was becoming a nation of activists; political Progressivism was the trend and the Muckrakers were prominent on the front-page news. By contrast, the Social Gospel was not primarily political. It was first and foremost concerned with the Kingdom of God being ushered in, not only into the individual, the church, the family and the home, but into all areas of society.

True Christianity has always cared for physical and social ills like Christ did, but I think there are a few reasons for this sudden reemergence around 1900. The new growth of cities meant the growth of urban decay, and more desperation meant more social breakdown. In addition, I believe it wasn't so much that humanity suddenly got worse (individuals have always been sinners and societies always corrupt), but it probably became much more noticeable for a couple of reasons. First, perhaps because (owing to America's Christian ancestors and an agricultural society) up until the late 19th century families were generally nuclear, small communities generally cared for their needy members, and cooperation rather than competition was generally preferred. Industrialization and urbanization changed much of that. Second, perhaps also because Social Darwinism had begun to challenge the basic assumption that the weak were to be cared for rather than weeded out.

Basically, though not all Americans were Christians, American society had previously tended to operate on originally Christian values. When industrialization swept though, traditional mores were disrupted, and suddenly it became apparent to Christians that much of society was going, literally and figuratively, to hell. Social pathogens stopped laying dormant, no longer held back by conventional courtesy but unleashed by the madness of modernity, and began to ravage their way though society in a new way. Christian mobilization no longer seemed optional but crucial.

If this sounds kinda like the present era, that's because... it is kinda like the present era. And it is probably like many eras before it. Throughout history there have been societal and moral shifts, often followed by conscious Christian efforts to restore and heal.

I think there's a lot to be learned from the Social Gospel movement about how God's people can powerfully introduce restoration and healing and justice today. More on that later. I also believe there were some things about the Social Gospel that were unhealthy and led to a distortion of the gospel itself, which can serve as a warning to us. More on that later too.

What do we mean by 'justice'?

There are a lot of ideas of what justice is, especially social justice, and precious few workable definitions. This one, I liked a lot.

Justice: The order God seeks to reestablish in His creation where all people receive the benefits of life with Him.

Justice has two major aspects. First, it is the standard by which penalties are assigned for breaking the obligations of the society. Second, justice is the standard by which the advantages of social life are handed out, including material goods, rights of participation, opportunities, and liberties.

... Justice in the Bible very frequently deals with benefits. Cultures differ widely in determining the basis by which the benefits are to be justly distributed. For some it is by birth and nobility. For others the basis is might or ability or merit. Or it might simply be whatever is the law or whatever has been established by contracts. The Bible takes another possibility. Benefits are distributed according to need. Justice then is very close to love and grace.

... Various needy groups are the recipients of justice. These groups include widows, orphans, resident aliens, wage earners, the poor, and prisoners, slaves, and the sick (Job 29:12-17; Psalms 146:7-9; Malachi 3:5). Each of these groups has specific needs which keep its members from being able to participate in aspects of the life of their community. Even life itself might be threatened. Justice involves meeting those needs. The forces which deprive people of what is basic for community life are condemned as oppression (Micah 2:2; Ecclesiastes 4:1). To oppress is to use power for one's own advantage in depriving others of their basic rights in the community (see Mark 12:40). To do justice is to correct that abuse and to meet those needs (Isaiah 1:17). Injustice is depriving others of their basic needs or failing to correct matters when those rights are not met (Jeremiah 5:28; Job 29:12-17).

... Freedom from bondage is comparable to not being “in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and lack of everything” (Deuteronomy 28:48 NRSV).

... Thus biblical justice restores people to community.... Similarly, interest on loans was prohibited (Leviticus 25:36) as a process which pulled people down, endangering their position in the community.

... Justice delivers; it does not merely relieve the immediate needs of those in dire straits (Psalms 76:9; Isaiah 45:8; Isaiah 58:11; Isaiah 62:1-2). Helping the needy means setting them back on their feet, giving a home, leading to prosperity, restoration, ending the oppression (Psalms 68:5-10; Psalms 10:15-16; compare 107; Psalms 113:7-9). Such thorough justice can be socially disruptive. In the Jubilee year as some receive back lands, others lose recently-acquired additional land. The advantage to some is a disadvantage to others.

... The most prominent human agent of justice is the ruler. The king receives God's justice and is a channel for it (Psalms 72:1; compare Romans 13:1-2,Romans 13:4). There is not a distinction between a personal, voluntary justice and a legal, public justice. The same caring for the needy groups of the society is demanded of the ruler (Psalms 72:4; Ezekiel 34:4; Jeremiah 22:15-16). Such justice was also required of pagan rulers (Daniel 4:27; Proverbs 31:8-9).

Justice is also a central demand on all people who bear the name of God. Its claim is so basic that without it other central demands and provisions of God are not acceptable to God. Justice is required to be present with the sacrificial system (Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8; Isaiah 1:11-17; Matthew 5:23-24), fasting (Isaiah 58:1-10), tithing (Matthew 23:23), obedience to the other commandments (Matthew 19:16-21), or the presence of the Temple of God (Jeremiah 7:1-7).

_Holman Bible Dictionary

He remembers that we are dust.

Bless the LORD, O my soul,
and all that is within me,
bless his holy name!
Bless the LORD, O my soul,
and forget not all his benefits,
who forgives all your iniquity,
who heals all your diseases,
who redeems your life from the pit,
who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy,
who satisfies you with good
so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's.

The LORD works righteousness
and justice for all who are oppressed.
He made known his ways to Moses,
his acts to the people of Israel.
The LORD is merciful and gracious,
slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
He will not always chide,
nor will he keep his anger forever.
He does not deal with us according to our sins,
nor repay us according to our iniquities.
For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him;
as far as the east is from the west,
so far does he remove our transgressions from us.
As a father shows compassion to his children,
so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him.
For he knows our frame;
he remembers that we are dust.
_from Psalm 103

Our God remembers our human frailty far better than even we do. He knows our spiritually impoverished condition and has compassion, though he himself has never lacked a thing, has never had sins to be blotted out.

Likewise I believe that he remembers that we are "dust." More than mere spirits, we have physical needs. He pities us in this as well, though he himself does not require food nor sleep nor shelter. He works justice for the oppressed. He did not leave Israel in Egypt with the promise of an eternal Promised Land, but led them out of physical oppression into a place of earthly abundance and prosperity (contingent on several factors and choices, of course, just as he does now, but he led them to it all the same).

Though Old Testament shadows are fulfilled more perfectly, and the reality of the eternal is now more clearly seen, yet God still cares about our life on this earth. He removes our transgressions and heals our diseases. Forget not all his benefits.

Honduras and endurance.

I'm back from Honduras, and really have little excuse not to post. Yet for some reason rambling and raving about all I saw and learned sounds silly. I'd rather give a series of vignettes of what God did, I believe, instead of a day-by-day travelogue. I suppose when it comes to summaries I'm no Tim Challies.

"I 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, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

"For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing."

_i Timothy 4.1-8

This is the Scripture passage from the Sunday sermon on New Year's Eve preached at the Orphanage Emmanuel church. I must say that it's a bit of irony that it was the best expository sermon I've heard in months and I had to go to Honduras for it (it was preached in Spanish, no less). Forget the circumstances, though; the Holy Spirit convicted me and took hold of me.

One of the speaker's questions was, have you fought the good fight in 2006? Can you say you have kept the faith? And though I don't usually put much stock in the significance of the calendar year as a way of categorizing my life, I realized that from January to December of 2006, I had been on a spiritual decline, and at that moment it seemed clear that the problem was that I simply was not putting up a fight. I had let sin win too often too easily, I had forgotten about the crown of righteousness that could be mine, I had stopped loving his appearing. All of a sudden this realization hit me, and the shame was terrible. How could I have forgotten something so precious, so fundamental? It's not like I didn't know all these things before. But the Holy Spirit is like that. Sneaky.

And henceforth he also, in his wonderful grace, encouraged me immensely. It was like being woken up from a bad dream, if I may use such a trite simile. After the service I read II Timothy 4 again for myself, and I was captivated by Paul's tone in this letter. Here was the faithful apostle, whom most of us think of as a Missionary Superhero, clearly in a vulnerable moment. His tone is serious, firm, yet almost quiet. And what does he charge to Timothy? "Preach the word. Fulfill your ministry. Love his appearing." So simple! So important!

And this was all part of a grander theme throughout my time in Honduras in which God showed me about endurance. I lack endurance in just about anything I do. But in Honduras, I saw missionaries who lived among the poorest of the poor, not just for a few months but who will probably be there for years; missionaries who have been working for three years and have a handful of converts and are excited for more; missionaries who 17 years ago exchanged life in Southern California for 1000 acres in rural Honduras so that now, 409 children might have a home and love and, sometimes, a Lord and Savior. You think parenting is a thankless job; try being the parent of scores of children who may or may not want anything to do with the God you serve.

God also showed me children who memorized much and loved little of the God of the Bible; children who wake up every day with the reality that they have no parents, and though they are well cared for they in many ways are raised by their many peers; children who indeed hope in Christ and want something better in this life and the next, but who must face the truth that life outside the orphanage is hell on earth for many, and rare is the young Christian who can resist trading holiness for a bit of temporary security. But be it naivete or childlike faith, or maybe both, they still love his appearing, and I will keep praying for them to fight the good fight.

So that's a bit of Honduras. It will like come up again someday soon and then - then! - there may be photos, as well.