What It's Really All About

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, in principle it's the same. We may use different techniques, but the purpose has always been the same, to bring God's kingdom in. Since God's kingdom is experienced in hearts, we should to whatever we can to touch people's hearts. This include charitable acts.

If I understand you correctly, do you wish the Church to build hospitals, orphanages, and do all kinds of charitable acts as a mean to touch people's hearts so that they might receive the Lord as their Savior, and so bringing in God's kingdom?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by testallthings

If I understand you correctly, do you wish the Church to build hospitals, orphanages, and do all kinds of charitable acts as a mean to touch people's hearts so that they might receive the Lord as their Savior, and so bringing in God's kingdom?

Yes, as the Lord leads.

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?

[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.

[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" ?

[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?