What It's Really All About

[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 micah6v8

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.

The Christian writer John Stott points out that different situations call for different responses:- in the parable of the Good Samaritan, we do not admonish the Samaritan for not enquiring into the spiritual state of the traveller; nor do we admonish Philip for sharing the gospel with the Ethiopian without enquiring into his social needs.

[micah6v8]

I would like to share another portion from a book by John Stott (a Christian writer). He points to Jesus’ words and work:- Jesus’ words explained His works and His works dramatized his words…. “Each supported the other. For words remain abstract until they are made concrete in deeds of love, while works remain ambiguous until they are interpreted by the proclamation of the gospel. Words without works lack credibility; works without words lack clarity. So Jesus’ works made his words visible; his words made his works intelligible”.

He compares two parables found in Luke:- (1) Parable of the Prodigal Son (which is about conversion) and (2) Parable of the Good Samaritan (which is about social action). There are four points:-

(1) In both cases, there is a victim. The prodigal son was a victim of his own sin while the traveller was a victim of others’ sins (robbery/assault).

(2) In both cases, there is a rescue. The prodigal son repents and is forgiven while the traveller is saved by the Samaritan’s good works.

(3) In both cases, there is a display of love. The prodigal son is loved by the father (symbolising the heavenly Father) while the traveller is loved by his neighbour. The prodigal son is loved even though he does not deserve it while the traveller is loved even though the Samaritan was not obliged to help him).

(4) In both cases, there is an alternative to the love. The prodigal son’s brother was not happy about his brother being saved; while the Levite and priest passed by the way.

Stott then states:-Each of us resembles the prodigal son; and each of us should resemble the good Samaritan. First we face our sins, then we face the world’s sufferings. First we receive mercy, then we go and show it.

[testallthings]

Thank you aron for your testimony. It is very similar to what I experienced some years ago. I was walking into an apartment building when I saw a man mopping the stairs. I just said good morning to him. His reaction surprised me. He said, “Here is a real gentleman. Not like the people of these building who think so highly of themselves that never say hello.” I felt sorry for him and for the people of that building. What does it cost to say hello to someone?

The other experience was when reading about Daniel's prayer for his people and his country, confessing his sins and the sins of his people, I felt so touched that I began to do the same, with many tears, confessing my sins and the sin of my people.

[aron]

Originally Posted by testallthings

What does it cost to say hello to someone?

This is what I was getting at: we have transformative experiences, right? We confess the Lord, we're touched, we even weep before God, in gratitude, and shame. But, how does this percolate through our living, and more importantly, how does this percolate through others' living? Does our experience transfer to others? And if so, how? A question worth asking.

Jesus was intimately connected to the Father, and through Him, the disciples got home as well. And through the disciples many others touched Jesus. And so forth. We're part of the chain of experience. Does it stop with me? Or does it keep going? I (hopefully) got transformed by my experiences - who else got transformed? No one? Then I doubt my experiences.

And to answer the question of the speaker in the video, Yes, I do have issues with church leadership. But that doesn't mean going to a different church. It means not subsidizing the feckless stupidity of my church leaders.

[aron]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

(3) In both cases, there is a display of love. The prodigal son is loved by the father (symbolising the heavenly Father) while the traveller is loved by his neighbour. The prodigal son is loved even though he does not deserve it while the traveller is loved even though the Samaritan was not obliged to help him.

This was an absolutely fantastic bit of writing. I think Jesus would say, "Now you are not far from the kingdom." What will transform this world is love.

Contrast this to the LCM, who won't show love unless there's a possibility of return. The FTTA trainers told us, "Don't waste your time". Quote, unquote. And no, they weren't going rogue. They were channeling WL.

If you look at the Samaritan, like Philip with the Ethiopian, there is no thought of return, of WL's "building up" idea. These are seemingly random acts of kindness, disconnected to some meta-narrative of tractoring God's heavenly kingdom into earthly reality, as we might imagine we should. Who'll shepherd the poor Ethiopian eunuch, and guide him into all the truth? An angel sent Philip to the south road, an the Holy Spirit said, Run up that chariot, and the Holy Spirit knew the next move as well, and the next. . . Philip didn't need to manipulate God's kingdom into being. Philip was already there. Just obey the voice from heaven, and love your neighbor. Yes, that one - the one right next to you.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by aron

Contrast this to the LCM, who won't show love unless there's a possibility of return. The FTTA trainers told us, "Don't waste your time". Quote, unquote. And no, they weren't going rogue. They were channeling WL.

If you look at the Samaritan, like Philip with the Ethiopian, there is no thought of return, of WL's "building up" idea. These are seemingly random acts of kindness, disconnected to some meta-narrative of tractoring God's heavenly kingdom into earthly reality, as we might imagine we should. Who'll shepherd the poor Ethiopian eunuch, and guide him into all the truth? An angel sent Philip to the south road, an the Holy Spirit said, Run up that chariot, and the Holy Spirit knew the next move as well, and the next. . . Philip didn't need to manipulate God's kingdom into being. Philip was already there. Just obey the voice from heaven, and love your neighbor. Yes, that one - the one right next to you.

Jesus chose to heal the ten lepers even though He would have known that only one out of the ten would come back and thank Him.

I guess the "don't waste time" mentality you mentioned above has similarities with what Jesus told the disciples in Matthew 10 when He sent them forth :-"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet."

I suppose the point is that we should still preach the gospel and do good works to everyone, but if the recipient is still hostile, then we just move on? (Let me know if you have a different view).

As for the Philip-Ethiopian encounter, in today's context (with the world being more interconnected with internet, whatsapp), should we expect the modern-day Philip to do a bit more follow-through? (Give the Ethiopian his email address? But no particular need to follow-up unless he is led by the Spirit to do so?)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

As for the Philip-Ethiopian encounter, in today's context (with the world being more interconnected with internet, whatsapp), should we expect the modern-day Philip to do a bit more follow-through? (Give the Ethiopian his email address? But no particular need to follow-up unless he is led by the Spirit to do so?)

I think the story is more about what can happen if we listen to the Spirit in our daily lives and that short encounters are worthwhile. I don't think that Philip no longer saw the Ethiopian need be taken in the absolute sense. The point is they were together for a short time but blessing still occurred.

If I see someone reading a Bible in Starbucks, I might ask them what they are reading or say something cute like, "That's a good book you're reading!" We might just chat for a moment or something more might come of it. But it's never a waste of time.

Large or small, just keeping sowing. That's the lesson.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Jesus chose to heal the ten lepers even though He would have known that only one out of the ten would come back and thank Him.

I guess the "don't waste time" mentality you mentioned above has similarities with what Jesus told the disciples in Matthew 10 when He sent them forth :-"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet."

I suppose the point is that we should still preach the gospel and do good works to everyone, but if the recipient is still hostile, then we just move on? (Let me know if you have a different view).

12*And as ye enter into the house, salute it. 13*And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14*And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15*Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.


Think about the Wright brothers. They invented the airplane in the US and wanted to sell it to the US but the US government wouldn’t even give them the time of day. They had no choice but to go to France. But once the whole world had seen what they did it became a testimony against those who had rejected even looking at their invention in the US. Why? Because those officials had spent $70,000 of taxpayer money on their own attempt and been publicly embarrassed. To have these two (no college degree) to do it was humiliating.

But this response is typical (pasteurization, the transistor, Earth revolves around the Sun, etc)