What It's Really All About

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, as the Lord leads.

How many hospitals do you need to build before a person gets saved.

Romans 10:14. Nothing about building things there.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

How many hospitals do you need to build before a person gets saved.

Romans 10:14. Nothing about building things there.

I don't believe that God is only interested in people's regeneration. He loves man and loves to see our God-given gifts and talents be beneficial to others. Isn't it "better to give than to receive?"

I have a book by James Kennedy, What if Jesus Had Never Been Born. The book itemizes the massive impact of Jesus Christ thru His people on every arena of life, from science to medicine to education to economics to civil liberties. It is just incredible!

In John 12:7-8 a woman wasted a year's wages worth of expensive perfume on Jesus. Judas said they should have used it for the poor. Jesus said "You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

Indicating that
a) the world's problems of poverty etc will never be solved before Christ returns, and Jesus didn't seem to mind that a year's worth of wages was not spent on the most needy.
b) the "wasting" of one's resources upon Christ with seemingly little benefit to others is actually not a waste at all as indicated by Christ's response to this woman's act.
c) the purpose of the church's money is to assist the poor, as indicated by Judas's desire to help the poor.
d) those who desire to help the poor at the expense of the gospel invariably have ulterior motives, like Judas (he did not care about the poor, he was a thief). If you want to become rich, found a charity, only some of all money raised actually goes to the people it intends to help. The rest is for administration, transport, salaries etc. Some of the richest people I know of are founders of charities, with expensive cars, mansions etc.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In John 12:7-8 a woman wasted a year's wages worth of expensive perfume on Jesus. Judas said they should have used it for the poor. Jesus said "You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

Indicating that
a) the world's problems of poverty etc will never be solved before Christ returns, and Jesus didn't seem to mind that a year's worth of wages was not spent on the most needy.
b) the "wasting" of one's resources upon Christ with seemingly little benefit to others is actually not a waste at all as indicated by Christ's response to this woman's act.
c) the purpose of the church's money is to assist the poor, as indicated by Judas's desire to help the poor.
d) those who desire to help the poor at the expense of the gospel invariably have ulterior motives, like Judas (he did not care about the poor, he was a thief). If you want to become rich, found a charity, only some of all money raised actually goes to the people it intends to help. The rest is for administration, transport, salaries etc. Some of the richest people I know of are founders of charities, with expensive cars, mansions etc.

I agree that the story provides a balance to the idea if just giving to the needy. And there is an aspect of "wasting" on Christ (from the worldly view) that cannot be supported to them but is very real and important.

But that one story was not the final nail in the coffin of giving to the poor and needy. It was not the end of love your neighbor as yourself.

It is not an either or, on or off situation. That is a false dichotomy. We are to have our eyes opened to what God would have us see. And sometimes he has us see only him and his worth.

But Jesus did not commend the event by declaring that this is what everyone should do with a year's wages. It was recognized as a heartfelt gift to the Master in anticipation of what was to come (whether she understood that or not). It was to be told with respect to his death that was to come.

It was not provided as the reason that we no longer are under the command to care for the needy. That we would always have the needy is a given. And Jesus did not say that to declare that it is hopeless to give to them. It was to recognize that there remained plenty of opportunity for such giving. That even if she had sold it for its value and given it to the poor, the need for the others would not be reduced.

Too many false dichotomies in LCM theology. It is grace so there can be no works. Declare that God must do it in us so since I don't feel like being righteous, God must not be going it in me and I am free to be unrighteous.

Some would declare "no! you are never free to be unrighteous." But if you then say "well then I should be righteous" the reply is "only if you are being righteous 'in Christ.'"

There is no such thing as a no-man's land between righteousness and unrighteousness. You either are or are not. You cannot just abstain from life until you think you are now "in Christ" and then go out to face the world.

[Cal]

Are some of you saying that if a OT principle is not echoed in the NT then it is therefore not a requirement? Really? Then what about Jesus' word about no jot or tittle of the law being overlooked? What does it mean that he is the fulfillment of the law?

The NT makes it clear that OT ceremonial law is abolished. But the numerous OT commandments about giving to help others are not ceremonial law. Neither is the commandment to tithe. Also, there are commandments in the OT about helping foreigners, which would seem to indicate that our kindnesses should extend to non-Christians.

Also, the point is not that the Church needs to "fix all the world's problems." That's a red herring. The point is that we are to do good works which glorify God and attract people to Christ. How big and elaborate these good works are is up to the faith and grace of those who carry them out. But please don't discount the faith and grace of others.

I agree that the Church will never fix the world system. Cancer may never be cured either. But that doesn't mean you don't comfort and treat those afflicted by it. You don't just say, "you are going to die anyway so to hell with you." People who are suffering are loved by God. He expects us to help if we can. What about the requirement to love your neighbor as yourself?

Categorically scoffing at such works seems to be the defense of guilty consciences.

Also, to whoever said that some of the richest people you know started charities... Some of the richest people are also Bible preachers. Witness Lee didn't do too bad for himself. So let's drop that argument, okay?

[Cal]

Here's the basics, guys.

Jesus said the top two commandments were to love God and love people. He said all the law and prophets of the OT, in other words the whole thing God was trying to get us to understand and do, are summed up in those two commandments.

How do we love God? We put him first in everything and obey him.

How do we love our neighbor? That's what this thread is all about.

So let me ask you guys: How is love for your neighbor as yourself being realized in your lives?

Do you think if you are just being a spiritual Christian, reading your Bible, going to church and seeking God that you are fulfilling the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself?

How are you obeying the second commandment? Being "nice" to people? Well, that's better than nothing, but do you think that's really a fulfillment?

Do you think if you preach the gospel to someone, but don't offer them a drink of water if they need it that you are loving them?

I'm not condemning, I'm just asking questions that I've been asking myself. The theological outs you guys are throwing into the conversation don't do it for me anymore.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Here's the basics, guys.

Jesus said the top two commandments were to love God and love people. He said all the law and prophets of the OT, in other words the whole thing God was trying to get us to understand and do, are summed up in those two commandments.

How do we love God? We put him first in everything and obey him.

How do we love our neighbor? That's what this thread is all about.

So let me ask you guys: How is love for your neighbor as yourself being realized in your lives?

Do you think if you are just being a spiritual Christian, reading your Bible, going to church and seeking God that you are fulfilling the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself?

How are you obeying the second commandment? Being "nice" to people? Well, that's better than nothing, but do you think that's really a fulfillment?

Do you think if you preach the gospel to someone, but don't offer them a drink of water if they need it that you are loving them?

I'm not condemning, I'm just asking questions that I've been asking myself. The theological outs you guys are throwing into the conversation don't do it for me anymore.

Igzy, the problem is that you are conflating unrelated things. I live in a low-income area. My neighbors have genuine difficulties--mental problems, addictions, poverty, etc. My wife and I, after having left the LC, now go out of our way to help these people (spiritually, psychologically, physically). Which is very different for us given our LC background. Yet, the Lord has shown us that this is real, and He has put this desire in our hearts. We genuinely want to counsel people on the front stoop, or help take care of people's children, or intervene when there are arguments, or offer meals, etc.

However, I have no desire to acquiesce to the expectations of religious leaders who believe that God expects me to "tithe" a certain percentage of my income to a 501(c)(3) corporation that will spend (at least) half of that money maintaining its own existence.

Again, if people wish to do that, it's really fine with me. But it should not be called "tithing," and it should not be imposed on people as "giving."

There really is a difference. Can you understand that?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Are some of you saying that if a OT principle is not echoed in the NT then it is therefore not a requirement? Really? Then what about Jesus' word about no jot or tittle of the law being overlooked? What does it mean that he is the fulfillment of the law?

The NT makes it clear that OT ceremonial law is abolished. But the numerous OT commandments about giving to help others are not ceremonial law. Neither is the commandment to tithe. Also, there are commandments in the OT about helping foreigners, which would seem to indicate that our kindnesses should extend to non-Christians.

If you really believe that the commandment to tithe remains in effect, then you should, as Ohio earlier suggested, bring your garden crops to the house of God. Yes--tithing shows a principle of giving, but you redefine this principle as something else (tithing) and then seem to be want to enforce your redefinition of this principle as an obligation on NT believers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

c) the purpose of the church's money is to assist the poor, as indicated by Judas's desire to help the poor.

d) those who desire to help the poor at the expense of the gospel invariably have ulterior motives, like Judas (he did not care about the poor, he was a thief). If you want to become rich, found a charity, only some of all money raised actually goes to the people it intends to help. The rest is for administration, transport, salaries etc. Some of the richest people I know of are founders of charities, with expensive cars, mansions etc.

To claim that all church giving to the poor is in nature the same as Judas is pure recklessness, and so typical of Lee and his followers. In one fell swoop they can condemn 2 millennia of good works by the church, as if none of it benefited the gospel. The hypocritical problem that LC'ers face is that they are guilty of the same sins which they ascribe to the rest of Christendom. By rewriting history for all their members, LC leaders whitewash all of their own sordid history. How does Evangelical explain all the business deals, failed and otherwise, which Lee and LSM have pushed upon their members?"

In my mind it is far more noble and godly to build an orphanage in Haiti, than it is to build luxury motor homes at Daystar. How do we compare an inner city crisis pregnancy center with the Linko boondoggle outside Taipei. (Where did all that money go?) When Lee got busted by immigration officials for carrying gold, was that really for "the gospel?" Is that Taipei skyscraper of LSM really for "the gospel?" This list could go on for quite a while.

Isn't it just amazing how the LC faithful believe every "program" coming from Lee and the Blendeds to be "of the Lord, for the gospel, and fruitful, preparing the bride for His return, etc.", and every other program to be "poor, poor, fallen, natural, and now we learn Judas-like, mis-aimed inventions of fallen and degraded Christianity?"

Originally Posted by Ohio

To claim that all church giving to the poor is in nature the same as Judas is pure recklessness, and so typical of Lee and his followers. In one fell swoop they can condemn 2 millennia of good works by the church, as if none of it benefited the gospel. The hypocritical problem that LC'ers face is that they are guilty of the same sins which they ascribe to the rest of Christendom. By rewriting history for all their members, LC leaders whitewash all of their own sordid history. How does Evangelical explain all the business deals, failed and otherwise, which Lee and LSM have pushed upon their members?"

In my mind it is far more noble and godly to build an orphanage in Haiti, than it is to build luxury motor homes at Daystar. How do we compare an inner city crisis pregnancy center with the Linko boondoggle outside Taipei. (Where did all that money go?) When Lee got busted by immigration officials for carrying gold, was that really for "the gospel?" Is that Taipei skyscraper of LSM really for "the gospel?" This list could go on for quite a while.

Isn't it just amazing how the LC faithful believe every "program" coming from Lee and the Blendeds to be "of the Lord, for the gospel, and fruitful, preparing the bride for His return, etc.", and every other program to be "poor, poor, fallen, natural, and now we learn Judas-like, mis-aimed inventions of fallen and degraded Christianity?"

Yeah it's sad, I don't believe there is any church that is not building its little empire on earth.

Originally Posted by Ohio

To claim that all church giving to the poor is in nature the same as Judas is pure recklessness, and so typical of Lee and his followers. In one fell swoop they can condemn 2 millennia of good works by the church, as if none of it benefited the gospel. The hypocritical problem that LC'ers face is that they are guilty of the same sins which they ascribe to the rest of Christendom. By rewriting history for all their members, LC leaders whitewash all of their own sordid history. How does Evangelical explain all the business deals, failed and otherwise, which Lee and LSM have pushed upon their members?"

In my mind it is far more noble and godly to build an orphanage in Haiti, than it is to build luxury motor homes at Daystar. How do we compare an inner city crisis pregnancy center with the Linko boondoggle outside Taipei. (Where did all that money go?) When Lee got busted by immigration officials for carrying gold, was that really for "the gospel?" Is that Taipei skyscraper of LSM really for "the gospel?" This list could go on for quite a while.

Isn't it just amazing how the LC faithful believe every "program" coming from Lee and the Blendeds to be "of the Lord, for the gospel, and fruitful, preparing the bride for His return, etc.", and every other program to be "poor, poor, fallen, natural, and now we learn Judas-like, mis-aimed inventions of fallen and degraded Christianity?"

The instructions Jesus gave at the end of the gospels is around preaching the gospel and the accompanying miraculous signs. He mentions nothing about giving to the poor. Anyway the disciples were too poor to give, "silver and gold have I none".

We are the church. When "we" each individually do our charitable deeds, that is the "church giving". "Church giving" does not mean everyone in the congregation giving their money to the leader or to some group (for them to pocket or put towards their business jet). It means each individual person giving as the Lord leads in secret, as per 'left hand not knowing what the right is doing'.

As an evangelical in my view the purpose of the church is not to fix the world's problems but to save as many as possible. The world is a sinking Titanic and addressing the world's problems is merely re-arranging the deck chairs (making the Titanic a better place), while it heads towards destruction.

I see it is the role of world government to address the world problems - after all a large portion of my tax dollar already goes to overseas and local welfare.

Modern tithing is a carry over from medieval times when the church was the source of welfare. It was introduced in the middle ages. I believe for some countries in Scandinavia a proportion of ones income still goes to a mandatory 'church tax' or tithe.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The instructions Jesus gave at the end of the gospels is around preaching the gospel and the accompanying miraculous signs. He mentions nothing about giving to the poor. Anyway the disciples were too poor to give, "silver and gold have I none".

We are the church. When "we" each individually do our charitable deeds, that is the "church giving". "Church giving" does not mean everyone in the congregation giving their money to the leader or to some group (for them to pocket or put towards their business jet). It means each individual person giving as the Lord leads in secret, as per 'left hand not knowing what the right is doing'.

As an evangelical in my view the purpose of the church is not to fix the world's problems but to save as many as possible. The world is a sinking Titanic and addressing the world's problems is merely re-arranging the deck chairs (making the Titanic a better place), while it heads towards destruction.

I see it is the role of world government to address the world problems - after all a large portion of my tax dollar already goes to overseas and local welfare.

Modern tithing is a carry over from medieval times when the church was the source of welfare. It was introduced in the middle ages. I believe for some countries in Scandinavia a proportion of ones income still goes to a mandatory 'church tax' or tithe.

Funny how you are able to compartmentalize "the world's problems" from "your neighbor's problems." You know, the neighbor you are supposed to love as yourself?

I ask again, how is your love for your neighbor being expressed?

[Cal]

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

"Then they will say to him, 'Lord, we thought we weren't supposed to address the world's problems!'"

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Funny how you are able to compartmentalize "the world's problems" from "your neighbor's problems." You know, the neighbor you are supposed to love as yourself?

I ask again, how is your love for your neighbor being expressed?

Also, in the parable of the Good Samaritan (which was about loving your neighbor), the Samaritan only takes care of the victim's health. The Samaritan doesn't stop to ask about the victim's spiritual condition. He does not even leave a gospel tract (or whatever was the equivalent in those times) for the victim when he departs from the inn.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The instructions Jesus gave at the end of the gospels is around preaching the gospel and the accompanying miraculous signs. He mentions nothing about giving to the poor. Anyway the disciples were too poor to give, "silver and gold have I none".

We are the church. When "we" each individually do our charitable deeds, that is the "church giving". "Church giving" does not mean everyone in the congregation giving their money to the leader or to some group (for them to pocket or put towards their business jet). It means each individual person giving as the Lord leads in secret, as per 'left hand not knowing what the right is doing'.

As an evangelical in my view the purpose of the church is not to fix the world's problems but to save as many as possible. The world is a sinking Titanic and addressing the world's problems is merely re-arranging the deck chairs (making the Titanic a better place), while it heads towards destruction.

I see it is the role of world government to address the world problems - after all a large portion of my tax dollar already goes to overseas and local welfare.

Hi Evangelical,

1 Peter 2 v 12 to 15 reads

¹² Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
¹³ Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, ¹⁴ or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. ¹⁵ For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people.

In verses 12 and 15, Peter tells the Christians to do good. And in between these verses are verses 13 and 14 which are about human authorities. The authorities' role is to "punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right". My reading of these verses is that the responsibility for doing good still rests primarily on Christians. Let me know if you have a different view.

This is similar to Paul's views on authorities in Romans 13 v 3 to 4. (I set out below verses 1 to 7 to set the context).


Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ² Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. ⁴ For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ⁵ Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. ⁶ This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. ⁷ Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.


As for the authorities' role in gospel furtherance, do see 1 Tim 2 v 1 to 4
"I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— ² for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. ³ This is good, and pleases God our Savior, ⁴ who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Paul seems to be saying "Pray for your authorities. If authorities do their role well, we Christians can live peaceful lives and holy lives. This would make it conducive for salvation of men." It seems that it is the way we live that leads people to salvation.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Hi Evangelical,

1 Peter 2 v 12 to 15 reads

¹² Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
¹³ Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, ¹⁴ or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. ¹⁵ For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people.

In verses 12 and 15, Peter tells the Christians to do good. And in between these verses are verses 13 and 14 which are about human authorities. The authorities' role is to "punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right". My reading of these verses is that the responsibility for doing good still rests primarily on Christians. Let me know if you have a different view.

....

As for the authorities' role in gospel furtherance, do see 1 Tim 2 v 1 to 4
"I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— ² for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. ³ This is good, and pleases God our Savior, ⁴ who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Paul seems to be saying "Pray for your authorities. If authorities do their role well, we Christians can live peaceful lives and holy lives. This would make it conducive for salvation of men." It seems that it is the way we live that leads people to salvation.

Just a great post, micah. Yes, this is a crucial piece that has been missing in this discussion. Thank you!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We are the church. When "we" each individually do our charitable deeds, that is the "church giving". "Church giving" does not mean everyone in the congregation giving their money to the leader or to some group (for them to pocket or put towards their business jet). It means each individual person giving as the Lord leads in secret, as per 'left hand not knowing what the right is doing'.

As an evangelical in my view the purpose of the church is not to fix the world's problems but to save as many as possible. The world is a sinking Titanic and addressing the world's problems is merely re-arranging the deck chairs (making the Titanic a better place), while it heads towards destruction.

I definitely agree with you about giving.

The Bible also speaks much about "good works." It may be worth our studying the topics in depth.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

d) those who desire to help the poor at the expense of the gospel invariably have ulterior motives, like Judas (he did not care about the poor, he was a thief). If you want to become rich, found a charity, only some of all money raised actually goes to the people it intends to help. The rest is for administration, transport, salaries etc. Some of the richest people I know of are founders of charities, with expensive cars, mansions etc.

I'm glad you brought up charities. Do you know that your favorite charitable organization LSM is setting on over $10,000,000 cash. I guess none of the current needs of the world quality for their help? What organization that claims to care for the eternal souls of men and God's heart sits on $10,000,000 cash? If the Lord returns tomorrow and asks for an accounting of why the blinded brothers did not spend that money to reach the lost and care for the saints how do you think the Lord will respond to "Well Lord, we needed to keep that money very liquid to help intimidate publishers who might publish books that criticize us, to protect your economy, but here's your money we don't need it anymore."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm glad you brought up charities. Do you know that your favorite charitable organization LSM is setting on over $10,000,000 cash. I guess none of the current needs of the world quality for their help? What organization that claims to care for the eternal souls of men and God's heart sits on $10,000,000 cash? If the Lord returns tomorrow and asks for an accounting of why the blinded brothers did not spend that money to reach the lost and care for the saints how do you think the Lord will respond to "Well Lord, we needed to keep that money very liquid to help fend off potential lawsuits, to protect your economy, but here's your money we don't need it anymore."

When it comes to LSM?DCP, etc, it is encouraged to give to these entities specifically. Yet it's a double standard when it comes to giving to other "charities". The default mindset is "works without faith".

Consider James 2:14-26 regarding faith and works.
"What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm glad you brought up charities. Do you know that your favorite charitable organization LSM is setting on over $10,000,000 cash. I guess none of the current needs of the world quality for their help? What organization that claims to care for the eternal souls of men and God's heart sits on $10,000,000 cash? If the Lord returns tomorrow and asks for an accounting of why the blinded brothers did not spend that money to reach the lost and care for the saints how do you think the Lord will respond to "Well Lord, we needed to keep that money very liquid to help intimidate publishers who might publish books that criticize us, to protect your economy, but here's your money we don't need it anymore."

What aspect of publishing Christian material and Bibles is not "caring for the eternal souls of men" and "reaching the lost" ?

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What aspect of publishing Christian material and Bibles is not "caring for the eternal souls of men" and "reaching the lost" ?

They can't be Christian materials because The Recovery is not part of Christianity.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

How many hospitals do you need to build before a person gets saved.

Romans 10:14. Nothing about building things there.

Sorry, but that seems a disingenuous question.

How many times do you need to preach to someone or pray for him before he gets saved?

We are told to do "every good work" (Col 1:10) that's a broad description that can include charitable works. There is no compelling reason to think it doesn't, except if you are compelled to find an excuse to not do these things.

I would say that anything you can do to express the love of Christ with a view to people being touched by it is potentially a good work. This can include building hospitals, or mowing yards for busy single moms. If you feel to not do these things, that's your business. But it seems rather cynical and frankly un-Christ-like to scoff at others who do.

There are a multitude of stories about people who came to the Lord because they were touched by the practical love of Christians. What kind of heart has a problem with this? The LCM likes to talk about practical oneness. Well, what about practical love and a practical gospel? What's wrong with those?

You'd better hope Matt 25:31-46 means only what Lee said it meant. Because if its meaning is more general. If it means practical love is the bottom-line expression of Christ.... you've got a problem.

[OBW]

Yeah. He says it well.

And I will add to it. Where is it stated that the things that are done require that there be an opportunity to preach the gospel (meaning speak about Christ) to be valid? Of you decide to serve meals at a homeless shelter and they do not want anyone making religious comments of any kind, should you refuse to serve?

Surely you should still serve. The act of refusing is to be exactly opposite of the one who was and still is our example — Christ.

And I will make an unpopular point on the quoting of Mark 16:15. Just like in Matthew, who was he talking to? To the eleven. Not even the 70, or the 500. Or to a huge assembly such as in the sermon on the mount.

But he was clear that the first commandment was to love God, and the second was like it — love your neighbor as yourself. And in one of the accounts he defined neighbor as unthinkably broad.

Can this be excluded from the mission of the church just because he did not include the word "church" when he commanded it?

So do you love yourself enough to want a hospital for your medical care? Then where is the restriction on how we love others, including giving to the building of hospitals that can care for them.

It is in the overt refusal to be part of that, or at least some such activities, that you prove your lack of love for your neighbor. I would agree that we cannot all do everything. And everyone does not have to give to this or that. Or help with every charity that we hear of. And not everyone is gifted enough financially to give to a lot of such things. So being selective is one thing. But refusing because you think it is not you job is to prove a lack of understanding of the scripture. And to prove a lack of love for neighbor.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is in the overt refusal to be part of that, or at least some such activities, that you prove your lack of love for your neighbor. I would agree that we cannot all do everything. And everyone does not have to give to this or that. Or help with every charity that we hear of. And not everyone is gifted enough financially to give to a lot of such things. So being selective is one thing. But refusing because you think it is not you job is to prove a lack of understanding of the scripture. And to prove a lack of love for neighbor.

Very well said.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

And I will add to it. Where is it stated that the things that are done require that there be an opportunity to preach the gospel (meaning speak about Christ) to be valid? Of you decide to serve meals at a homeless shelter and they do not want anyone making religious comments of any kind, should you refuse to serve?

Surely you should still serve.

Amen to that, too. Is the parable of the Good Samaritan even in the Recovery Version?