Embrace Magazine

SPRING 2011 EMBRACE 1

2 EMBRACE SPRING 20112 EMBRACE SPRING 2011

Our desire in Africa is to be a community of di-verse people, ideas and backgrounds, who share

the common goal of increasingly embracing God and His purposes in all their complexity. Just as one

person cannot get their hands around anything of enormous proportions, neither can we get our hands around all that God is doing on the continent, or even in our own locale, unless we join hands and work to-gether. We hope that Embrace will empower us to do better together what we could never do alone.Embrace |Fall, 2011 | Number 2Publisher: Assemblies of God World Missions – AfricaMike McClaflin, Regional Director

Embrace Recommends…Selected resources which the Embrace team believes will be beneficial in your journey to help the poor and hurting in Christ’s name.John D. Rockefeller spent millions of dollars on a study to determine how to give money away without creating dependency. Most of this was done in Venezuela, but it encompassed many other countries where he was helping with various projects. I don’t know what the results of that search were for him, but we do know through almost 100 years of missionary work now, that it is essential we get our missiology right before we do anything in the area of compassion ministries. This book, From the Roots Up: A Closer Look at Compassion and Justice in Missions, written by Dr. JoAnn Butrin, has the answers to many of these questions. The book closely looks at the scriptural mandate to turn our eyes to the poor and to those who are treated unjustly. The Bible has so much to say about both of these subjects, and I’m glad that as a Fel-lowship we can address many of the issues of the world. Of course, our resources aren’t enough to cover them all, but we can do our part, and I’m grateful that in so many ways we are now expressing the love of Jesus Christ to our needy world. Dr. Butrin’s book helps us know how to do this cor-rectly. It is useless for us to throw money at every problem and think we’re solving the world’s needs. It has to be done correctly, with the principles outlined in Scripture that Dr. Butrin has so ably laid out for us. I believe this book is vital for our day, and I trust it will be a guide for our future ac-tivity in this realm. We do need so much to respond to the needs of our world, but we must do it right so we don’t cre-ate a worse world when it’s all over. |L. John Bueno, (from the introduction to From the Roots Up)

This edition’s cover picture is of a fisherman on the flood plain of the Zambezi River, in Western Zambia. The need for evangelism and compassionate ministry in that area

is evident in the words of a group of Lozi people who were presented the Gospel. Their response was, “We don’t have a sin problem. We have a hunger problem.

Can your Jesus do something about that?” Of course, they do have a sin problem, but their statement is a clarion

call for those who preach the Gospel to understand and embody Jesus’ compassion and concern for the poor.

Editor: Don Tucker Assistant Editor: Jerry Ireland

Editorial Coordinator: Deborah Tucker Editorial Assistant: Phil Malcolm

Assisant: Michael DavisRegional Director – Africa: Mike McClaflin

Graphic Art: Chase Replogle

Embrace580 W Central St, Springfield MO 65802

Phone: (417) 851-5895 Fax: (417) 851-5899Email: [email protected]


With this second issue of Embrace, Africa AG Care remains committed to the premise that all men are lost and in need of a Redeemer. The sacrificial death of Jesus Christ has indeed secured this redemption for all who choose to believe.

We are also committed to the certainty that the Church is God’s wisest choice to meet man’s needs from the “womb to the tomb.”

We will not shirk from knowing that the heart of our Savior desires that poverty, sickness, terror, hunger, and any other test of the human temple be

a serious concern for all of God’s children, “the company of the redeemed.”

To this end, Africa AG Care will continue to provide a biblical path of understanding for the righteous to be a

source of compassion to the less fortunate among us; and always, we function as His hands, for His ultimate glory. |

Mike McClaflin is a career Assemblies of God missionary

to Africa currently serving as regional director for Africa and the surrounding island nations for the U.S. Assemblies of God.PHOTO RIGHTS: ABOVE: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM

PHOTO RIGHTS: ABOVE: AFRICA AG CARE BY PERMITION

FAITH-BASED - Reflect Christ’s Kingdom by proclaiming biblical Truth, touching the poor and needy, advocating justice, and announcing the Kingdom of God to all people.

PRESERVING DIGNITY - Each individual is created in the image of God and therefore has equal value and dignity.

People-Centered - The growth and well-being of people is the goal of every compassionate outreach.

Holistic - Following Christ’s example, we minister to the totality of man; emotionally, physically, mentally, and spiritually.

BEST PRACTICE - Employ time-tested, evidence-based strategies and methods.

SUSTAINABILITY - To ensure resources for the continuity of benefits without creating dependency.

PARTNERSHIP - Wherever possible, relief and development programs will be planned and executed in collaboration with our existing Assemblies of God partners, both within and beyond Africa.development programs will be planned and executed in collaboration with our existing Assemblies of God partners, both within and beyond Africa.

2 EMBRACE SPRING 2011

Our desire in Africa is to be a community of di-verse people, ideas and backgrounds, who share

the common goal of increasingly embracing God and His purposes in all their complexity. Just as one

person cannot get their hands around anything of enormous proportions, neither can we get our hands around all that God is doing on the continent, or even in our own locale, unless we join hands and work to-gether. We hope that Embrace will empower us to do better together what we could never do alone.Embrace |Fall, 2011 | Number 2Publisher: Assemblies of God World Missions – AfricaMike McClaflin, Regional Director

Embrace Recommends…Selected resources which the Embrace team believes will be beneficial in your journey to help the poor and hurting in Christ’s name.John D. Rockefeller spent millions of dollars on a study to determine how to give money away without creating dependency. Most of this was done in Venezuela, but it encompassed many other countries where he was helping with various projects. I don’t know what the results of that search were for him, but we do know through almost 100 years of missionary work now, that it is essential we get our missiology right before we do anything in the area of compassion ministries. This book, From the Roots Up: A Closer Look at Compassion and Justice in Missions, written by Dr. JoAnn Butrin, has the answers to many of these questions. The book closely looks at the scriptural mandate to turn our eyes to the poor and to those who are treated unjustly. The Bible has so much to say about both of these subjects, and I’m glad that as a Fel-lowship we can address many of the issues of the world. Of course, our resources aren’t enough to cover them all, but we can do our part, and I’m grateful that in so many ways we are now expressing the love of Jesus Christ to our needy world. Dr. Butrin’s book helps us know how to do this cor-rectly. It is useless for us to throw money at every problem and think we’re solving the world’s needs. It has to be done correctly, with the principles outlined in Scripture that Dr. Butrin has so ably laid out for us. I believe this book is vital for our day, and I trust it will be a guide for our future ac-tivity in this realm. We do need so much to respond to the needs of our world, but we must do it right so we don’t cre-ate a worse world when it’s all over. |L. John Bueno, (from the introduction to From the Roots Up)

This edition’s cover picture is of a fisherman on the flood plain of the Zambezi River, in Western Zambia. The need for evangelism and compassionate ministry in that area

is evident in the words of a group of Lozi people who were presented the Gospel. Their response was, “We don’t have a sin problem. We have a hunger problem.

Can your Jesus do something about that?” Of course, they do have a sin problem, but their statement is a clarion

call for those who preach the Gospel to understand and embody Jesus’ compassion and concern for the poor.

Editor: Don Tucker Assistant Editor: Jerry Ireland

Editorial Coordinator: Deborah Tucker Editorial Assistant: Phil Malcolm

Assisant: Michael DavisRegional Director – Africa: Mike McClaflin

Graphic Art: Chase Replogle

Embrace580 W Central St, Springfield MO 65802

Phone: (417) 851-5895 Fax: (417) 851-5899Email: [email protected]


With this second issue of Embrace, Africa AG Care remains committed to the premise that all men are lost and in need of a Redeemer. The sacrificial death of Jesus Christ has indeed secured this redemption for all who choose to believe.

We are also committed to the certainty that the Church is God’s wisest choice to meet man’s needs from the “womb to the tomb.”

We will not shirk from knowing that the heart of our Savior desires that poverty, sickness, terror, hunger, and any other test of the human temple be

a serious concern for all of God’s children, “the company of the redeemed.”

To this end, Africa AG Care will continue to provide a biblical path of understanding for the righteous to be a

source of compassion to the less fortunate among us; and always, we function as His hands, for His ultimate glory. |

Mike McClaflin is a career Assemblies of God missionary

to Africa currently serving as regional director for Africa and the surrounding island nations for the U.S. Assemblies of God.PHOTO RIGHTS: ABOVE: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM


FAITH-BASED - Reflect Christ’s Kingdom by proclaiming biblical Truth, touching the poor and needy, advocating justice, and announcing the Kingdom of God to all people.

PRESERVING DIGNITY - Each individual is created in the image of God and therefore has equal value and dignity.

People-Centered - The growth and well-being of people is the goal of every compassionate outreach.

Holistic - Following Christ’s example, we minister to the totality of man; emotionally, physically, mentally, and spiritually.

BEST PRACTICE - Employ time-tested, evidence-based strategies and methods.

SUSTAINABILITY - To ensure resources for the continuity of benefits without creating dependency.

PARTNERSHIP - Wherever possible, relief and development programs will be planned and executed in collaboration with our existing Assemblies of God partners, both within and beyond Africa.development programs will be planned and executed in collaboration with our existing Assemblies of God partners, both within and beyond Africa.


It has occasionally been suggested that increased social engagement, also referred to as compassionate ministries, will lead to a “social gospel,” and to the loss of our evangelistic focus.

A heightened emphasis on compassionate ministry is sometimes deemed the “slippery slope” that leads to theological liberalism. In reality however, as this article

will show, it was the use and understanding of the Bible––or rather, misuse and misunderstanding of the Bible––that constituted the primary “slippery slope” that led some Christian theologians and pastors in America at the turn of the twentieth century to embrace and advocate a purely social gospel.

DEFINING THE SOCIAL GOSPEL

The social gospel was a theological movement that arose in America in the late nineteenth and early

twentieth century. Its main proponents were Washington Gladden (1836-1918), Walter Rauschenbusch (1861-1918), Shailer Matthews (1863-1941), and Josiah Strong (1847-1916). These men, and a few others, defined the social gospel movement. Due to our limited space, we will focus on two of these men––Gladden and Rauschenbusch––to see what presuppositions and beliefs informed their views of the Bible, and how those views influenced their understanding of Christianity. Before looking at the specific views of Gladden and Rauschenbusch, it is important to first define the social gospel. Most scholars and historians would agree that at its core, the social gospel was a humanistic gospel that understood the life and ministry of Jesus as relating to earthly and societal concerns. Jesus was for them, a teacher of morals and ethics, and it was the duty of Jesus’ followers to usher in a utopian society based on Jesus’ ethical teachings.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Walter Rauschenbusch (1861-1918) was a Baptist preacher who pastored in the Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood of NY City and was sometimes called “the prophet of the social gospel.”


The social gospel was humanistic in at least two ways. First, it was humanistic in its understanding of who Jesus was. Jesus’ mission was seen as relating primarily to how we treat and interact with one another. This was a product of liberal theology, which sought to understand Jesus apart from miracles and dogmatic or propositional claims, as these were both considered to be theological dinosaurs belonging to a pre-critical era. Plus, the social gospel was humanistic in its goals. In fact, liberal theology was left with little else, after denying

the deity and miracles of Christ, but to focus on His ethical teachings. Therefore, the social gospel centered on genuine human needs in an increasingly urbanized America, where industrialization and immigration were producing an inner-city social crisis. Factories were producing a working class that, by necessity, lived in crowded city dwellings in order to be close to their places of employment. Also, workers were underpaid and overworked, and the cities became repositories of disease, despair, and degradation, as vast numbers of people migrated to the cities looking for work, and often met with disappointment. As a result, all the problems of city life––overcrowding, inadequate sanitation, and pollution––grew increasingly worse. Rauschenbusch himself summed this situation up during his first pastorate near New York City in the vicinity of Hell’s Kitchen, when he said of his congregants that they were “out of work, out of clothes, and out of hope.”1

It is also worth noting that, at this time, Revivalism, as seen in the ministries of men like Charles Finney and Billy Sunday, was a highly individualistic movement that took a passive stance regarding the ills of society. Despite the fact that Revivalism provided a much-needed remedy to the cold intellectualism of liberal theology, it also had its shortcomings. For instance, some believed that needed changes within society would come as individuals were transformed and became “new creations” in Christ. Therefore, many within the church chose not to engage at all in social needs. Others, as William McLoughlin has pointed out, “continued to believe complacently that this was the best of all worlds; God was in heaven, and all was right with America.”2 Behind this idea lay the notion that things were the way they were because God had so ordained them. Still others refused to believe that a person could not––by sheer will power and a good dose of Christian ethics and determination––bring about their own self-improvement. Billy Sunday, for example, refused to believe that people could be victims of their environment.3 THE WINDS OF CHANGE

The study of the Bible was undergoing radical changes during this time in America’s history. Prior to the late nineteenth century, most Americans believed in the inerrancy of the Bible.4 Due to the rising interest in science and the attenuating rise in higher education, the study of the Bible became increasingly academic and moved away from the realm of faith and the church.5 In Europe, the Enlightenment (or ‘age of reason’), and the attenuating belief that scientific inquiry could answer all of life’s questions had posed serious challenges to traditional interpretations of the Bible. At the core of these challenges was the denial of the supernatural. It was assumed that ours was a rational world and that only rational explanations would suffice for how

Washington Gladden (1836-1918), pastored the North Congregational Church in Springfield, Mass., has been called the “father of the social gospel.”



things worked. The Bible, full as it was with tales of the miraculous, of divine visitation, and of exorcisms, was deemed the product of a pre-modern mind. Some scholars then saw it as their task to get rid of these “superstitious” elements, and thus to uncover the “real Jesus.” In doing so, these scholars were left not with a Jesus who was the Son of God, but with a Jesus who was a moral teacher, an instructor in ethics, and whose aim was to teach us how to treat one another and how to build better communities and a better world.

THE ABANDONMENT OF SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY

It was into this scene that Gladden and Rauschenbusch emerged as advocates of the social gospel. Gladden’s views on the Bible were somewhat temperate––that is, neither fully liberal nor quite conservative. His book, Who Wrote the Bible, illustrates this most clearly, as he endeavors to popularize higher criticism. In doing so, Gladden attempted to attain a mediating position between the literalism of D. L. Moody and the agnosticism of Robert G. Ingersoll.6 The final chapter of this book was entitled, “How Much is the Bible Worth?” Here, Gladden summarizes his views and argues that the Bible is not inerrant (though he uses the term infallible) historically, scientifically, or morally. According to Gladden, the idea of an infallible Bible was a product of the Reformation, a concept he claims is unsupportable from the biblical text. Gladden also objects to theories of inspiration that depend on a priori reasoning—what God would have done because He is God, rather than on what, in fact, He has done. Following this critique, Gladden turns to the obvious question, “What then do we find the Bible to be?” First, he declares that the Bible is a book of righteousness, and in Gladden’s terminology “righteousness is salvation.”7 Second, the Bible “is the record of the development of the kingdom of righteousness … the record of this moral progress in the one nation of the earth to which morality has been the great concern.” As Gladden explains: It is a book of inspiration because it is the record of an inspired or divinely guided development; because the life it shows as unfolding is divine; because the goal to which we see the people steadily conducted in its vivid chapters is the goal which God has marked for human progress; because it gives us the origin and growth of the kingdom of God in the world.8

Gladden’s focus on “human progress” was an inherent part of Enlightenment ideology, and an aspect that in the decades to follow would come crashing down with the onset of WWI and WWII. And, his emphasis on the Kingdom of God in the world was also a direct product of liberal theology which could no longer abide

the Kingdom’s other-worldly aspects. Rauschenbusch held a similar view to that of Gladden. After traveling to Germany and interacting with some of the prominent liberal theologians of the time, he returned to America, having embraced the basic tenets of liberal theology, particularly the denial of the supernatural.9 The result was that Rauschenbusch set about advocating and preaching a man-centered gospel and a purely human Jesus. Rauschenbusch especially adopted a modified and mostly non-biblical concept of the Kingdom of God as the framework for his theology. Though he rightly believed in the present and future aspects of the Kingdom, he understood the Kingdom in purely humanistic, earthly terms. For Rauschenbusch, the Kingdom of God amounted to “humanity organized according to the will of God.”10 As previously alluded to, prior to WWI, it was believed that humanity was on an upward trajectory toward a utopian society. The Enlightenment had shown that man was capable of discovering and overturning many an ancient myth regarding the universe and how it worked. Rauschenbusch, like Gladden, also denied biblical inerrancy (which he referred to as infallibility). Citing 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21, Rauschenbusch claims that inspiration did not involve infallibility when men knew it by experience.”11 His point is that if “inspiration” were infallible to those in the early church, then why would Paul call for believers to test prophecies? Of course, the error Rauschenbusch is making here is to equate the inspiration of Scripture with the charismatic gift of prophecy. There is a fundamental difference in kind between the inspired speech wherein divinely appointed apostles and prophets spoke the very words of God, and inspired speech such as Paul refers to in 1 Thessalonians, whereby men prophesied, somewhat imperfectly, what God was saying to the church.12

CONCLUSION

What one finds when looking into the lives and beliefs of the main proponents of the social gospel is not

that these were men who held firmly to the ancient and enduring doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Rather, these men and their followers clearly had departed from the faith once and for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 1:3). This is most clearly seen in their abandonment of Scriptural authority, which had been a direct product of their embracing liberal scholarship. Therefore, the abandonment of Scriptural authority was one of the primary streams of influence that produced the social gospel. It was not as though people began loving their neighbors and then suddenly found themselves unable to believe in the God of love revealed in the Bible. In fact, the case can be made that it was the absence of


social concern among some conservative Christians, namely Revivalists, that provided the seedbed for the social gospel. Again, it is important to understand that Revivalism was a positive movement in many ways. It brought spiritual renewal and Christian conversion to thousands, and for a time, seemed to turn the tide of the onslaught of liberal theology. But where it came up short was that in its response to liberalism’s denial of any “other-worldly aspect” of Christianity, Revivalists tended to swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme and neglect the present and this-worldly aspects of the Kingdom of God (see Luke 11:20; 17:21). The “slippery slope” that led to the social gospel was, historically, the desire to harmonize Christianity with the prevailing scientific and philosophical theories of the day. This desired harmonization flowed from having already embraced the claims of liberal scholarship. The social gospel was thus a product of social Darwinism, and attempting to apply Darwin’s theories beyond science, to the whole of life in a manner that was distinctly philosophical. And, the “slippery slope” was a product of trying to remove from the concept of the Kingdom of God its eternal, and yes, other-worldly aspects, in favor of a here-and-now, evolutionary social agenda that would one day attain––through human strivings and effort––a form of social perfection.

There were many historical, theological, and social streams that fed the emergence of the social gospel, and this brief article in no way does justice to the complexity of the entire movement. However, the abandonment of trust in the Bible as divine revelation and as inerrant at least contributed to this phenomenon. Thus, to reiterate, the “slippery slope” that leads to the social gospel has not historically been, and is not likely to be in the future, merely increased engagement in acts of compassion. Rather, the slope that presents a grave danger to present and future generations of Christians is the abandonment of Scriptural authority through the denial of biblical inerrancy and a redefining of the doctrine of inspiration. We should thus be inherently suspicious of any theory whose harmonization with Scripture inherently does violence to our belief in biblical inerrancy and inspiration. On the other hand, when that essential foundation––when biblical authority and an inerrant Bible are maintained, and when inspiration is understood according to its historical and biblical definitions, it seems likely that we should be able to love our neighbors constantly and vigorously, and without the slightest fear that we might somehow by default become unable to love or believe in the very God who so commands us. |

Jerry Ireland is a career mission serving in Zambia, Southern Africa and Assistant Editor of Embrace.

___________________________________

___________________________________

Notes: 1 Cited in Ronald C. White and C. Howard Hopkins, The Social Gospel (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1966), 253.2 William G. McLoughlin, Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 142-144.3 Ibid.4 Mark Knoll, Between Faith and Criticism (San Francisco: Harper Row, 1986), 11.5 Ibid., 32.6 Ferenc Morton Szasz, The Divided Mind of Protestant America, 1880-1930 (Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1982), 24.7 Washington Gladden, Who Wrote the Bible? (Curtis A. Weyant, Charles Franks, et. al., Public Domain Books, Kindle Edition), 239.8 Ibid., 241.9 Robert T. Handy, The Social Gospel in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), 255.10 Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel (New York: MacMillan, 1917), 140.11 Ibid., 191.12 For an excellent discussion of this difference, see Wayne Gruden, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1988), especially chapters 2-7.


things worked. The Bible, full as it was with tales of the miraculous, of divine visitation, and of exorcisms, was deemed the product of a pre-modern mind. Some scholars then saw it as their task to get rid of these “superstitious” elements, and thus to uncover the “real Jesus.” In doing so, these scholars were left not with a Jesus who was the Son of God, but with a Jesus who was a moral teacher, an instructor in ethics, and whose aim was to teach us how to treat one another and how to build better communities and a better world.

THE ABANDONMENT OF SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY

It was into this scene that Gladden and Rauschenbusch emerged as advocates of the social gospel. Gladden’s views on the Bible were somewhat temperate––that is, neither fully liberal nor quite conservative. His book, Who Wrote the Bible, illustrates this most clearly, as he endeavors to popularize higher criticism. In doing so, Gladden attempted to attain a mediating position between the literalism of D. L. Moody and the agnosticism of Robert G. Ingersoll.6 The final chapter of this book was entitled, “How Much is the Bible Worth?” Here, Gladden summarizes his views and argues that the Bible is not inerrant (though he uses the term infallible) historically, scientifically, or morally. According to Gladden, the idea of an infallible Bible was a product of the Reformation, a concept he claims is unsupportable from the biblical text. Gladden also objects to theories of inspiration that depend on a priori reasoning—what God would have done because He is God, rather than on what, in fact, He has done. Following this critique, Gladden turns to the obvious question, “What then do we find the Bible to be?” First, he declares that the Bible is a book of righteousness, and in Gladden’s terminology “righteousness is salvation.”7 Second, the Bible “is the record of the development of the kingdom of righteousness … the record of this moral progress in the one nation of the earth to which morality has been the great concern.” As Gladden explains: It is a book of inspiration because it is the record of an inspired or divinely guided development; because the life it shows as unfolding is divine; because the goal to which we see the people steadily conducted in its vivid chapters is the goal which God has marked for human progress; because it gives us the origin and growth of the kingdom of God in the world.8

Gladden’s focus on “human progress” was an inherent part of Enlightenment ideology, and an aspect that in the decades to follow would come crashing down with the onset of WWI and WWII. And, his emphasis on the Kingdom of God in the world was also a direct product of liberal theology which could no longer abide

the Kingdom’s other-worldly aspects. Rauschenbusch held a similar view to that of Gladden. After traveling to Germany and interacting with some of the prominent liberal theologians of the time, he returned to America, having embraced the basic tenets of liberal theology, particularly the denial of the supernatural.9 The result was that Rauschenbusch set about advocating and preaching a man-centered gospel and a purely human Jesus. Rauschenbusch especially adopted a modified and mostly non-biblical concept of the Kingdom of God as the framework for his theology. Though he rightly believed in the present and future aspects of the Kingdom, he understood the Kingdom in purely humanistic, earthly terms. For Rauschenbusch, the Kingdom of God amounted to “humanity organized according to the will of God.”10 As previously alluded to, prior to WWI, it was believed that humanity was on an upward trajectory toward a utopian society. The Enlightenment had shown that man was capable of discovering and overturning many an ancient myth regarding the universe and how it worked. Rauschenbusch, like Gladden, also denied biblical inerrancy (which he referred to as infallibility). Citing 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21, Rauschenbusch claims that inspiration did not involve infallibility when men knew it by experience.”11 His point is that if “inspiration” were infallible to those in the early church, then why would Paul call for believers to test prophecies? Of course, the error Rauschenbusch is making here is to equate the inspiration of Scripture with the charismatic gift of prophecy. There is a fundamental difference in kind between the inspired speech wherein divinely appointed apostles and prophets spoke the very words of God, and inspired speech such as Paul refers to in 1 Thessalonians, whereby men prophesied, somewhat imperfectly, what God was saying to the church.12

CONCLUSION

What one finds when looking into the lives and beliefs of the main proponents of the social gospel is not

that these were men who held firmly to the ancient and enduring doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Rather, these men and their followers clearly had departed from the faith once and for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 1:3). This is most clearly seen in their abandonment of Scriptural authority, which had been a direct product of their embracing liberal scholarship. Therefore, the abandonment of Scriptural authority was one of the primary streams of influence that produced the social gospel. It was not as though people began loving their neighbors and then suddenly found themselves unable to believe in the God of love revealed in the Bible. In fact, the case can be made that it was the absence of


social concern among some conservative Christians, namely Revivalists, that provided the seedbed for the social gospel. Again, it is important to understand that Revivalism was a positive movement in many ways. It brought spiritual renewal and Christian conversion to thousands, and for a time, seemed to turn the tide of the onslaught of liberal theology. But where it came up short was that in its response to liberalism’s denial of any “other-worldly aspect” of Christianity, Revivalists tended to swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme and neglect the present and this-worldly aspects of the Kingdom of God (see Luke 11:20; 17:21). The “slippery slope” that led to the social gospel was, historically, the desire to harmonize Christianity with the prevailing scientific and philosophical theories of the day. This desired harmonization flowed from having already embraced the claims of liberal scholarship. The social gospel was thus a product of social Darwinism, and attempting to apply Darwin’s theories beyond science, to the whole of life in a manner that was distinctly philosophical. And, the “slippery slope” was a product of trying to remove from the concept of the Kingdom of God its eternal, and yes, other-worldly aspects, in favor of a here-and-now, evolutionary social agenda that would one day attain––through human strivings and effort––a form of social perfection. There were many historical, theological, and social streams that fed the emergence of the social gospel, and this brief article in no way does justice to the complexity of the entire movement. However, the abandonment of trust in the Bible as divine revelation and as inerrant at least contributed to this phenomenon. Thus, to reiterate, the “slippery slope” that leads to the social gospel has not historically been, and is not likely to be in the future, merely increased engagement in acts of compassion. Rather, the slope that presents a grave danger to present and future generations of Christians is the abandonment of Scriptural authority through the denial of biblical inerrancy and a redefining of the doctrine of inspiration. We should thus be inherently suspicious of any theory whose harmonization with Scripture inherently does violence to our belief in biblical inerrancy and inspiration. On the other hand, when that essential foundation––when biblical authority and an inerrant Bible are maintained, and when inspiration is understood according to its historical and biblical definitions, it seems likely that we should be able to love our neighbors constantly and vigorously, and without the slightest fear that we might somehow by default become unable to love or believe in the very God who so commands us. |

Jerry Ireland is a career mission serving in Zambia, Southern Africa and Assistant Editor of Embrace.

___________________________________

___________________________________

Notes: 1 Cited in Ronald C. White and C. Howard Hopkins, The Social Gospel (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1966), 253.2 William G. McLoughlin, Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 142-144.3 Ibid.4 Mark Knoll, Between Faith and Criticism (San Francisco: Harper Row, 1986), 11.5 Ibid., 32.6 Ferenc Morton Szasz, The Divided Mind of Protestant America, 1880-1930 (Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1982), 24.7 Washington Gladden, Who Wrote the Bible? (Curtis A. Weyant, Charles Franks, et. al., Public Domain Books, Kindle Edition), 239.8 Ibid., 241.9 Robert T. Handy, The Social Gospel in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), 255.10 Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel (New York: MacMillan, 1917), 140.11 Ibid., 191.12 For an excellent discussion of this difference, see Wayne Gruden, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1988), especially chapters 2-7.


Jake, not his real name, came into my life in a rather back-door fashion. I needed someone for handyman-type work around our home. Jake was simply mentioned, more than

recommended. He was introduced as a “simple man who can do just about any type of handy work needed.”

It was that simple. Over time, Jake became our yard maintenance man. As he proved conscientious and faithful – if not finessed and highly skillful – I wanted to know him better.

Jake qualifies as a senior citizen, and, by most any definition, has been a social dropout his entire adult life.

Until recently, he had never filed taxes or held a social security card. During the time I have known him, Jake lived for a season in his old car parked on a local church parking lot. Then he lived with some young adults caught up in the drug culture, sleeping on their couch for lack of a better place. He has lived in various rundown rentals. Where he lives now is at the bottom of the spectrum of what we refer to as human habitation. I wondered how he found warmth during the past, frigid winter.

I have watched him walk miles, in heat and cold, in order to fulfill a commitment, do a job he has promised to do. I have transported him willingly when I could.

Once, not long ago, his old vehicle fell apart. Rather matter-of-factly, and with no small measure of aggravation, he explained why he was walking again, and how much it would cost just to buy the parts. He would have to fix it himself. Another of his many basic skills.

With no prodding or asking on his part, I offered to lend him the needed money. I took him

to the auto store and we purchased the parts. Very grateful, in his simple way, Jake again and again gave me his verbal assurances of ultimately paying the loan back. I assured him we would work together on it.

Rather than try and paint a thorough, literary picture, I’d like to just offer some points of our interactions and how they impact my life and thoughts.

I ’ve had many conversations with Jake about his spiritual walk. I discovered he had clear concepts and standards, and would not pretend in a manner below those standards.

I recall with inner joy the day he sought me out to tell me he had made that critical life choice of giving his life to Jesus.

Jake hasn’t been able to repay the auto parts loan yet. But he has been consistent in keeping the issue before our eyes and letting me know he will do so. I believe him.

People in perpetual poverty and need can tend to be very suppliant. Asking for help is a way of life.

Jake never asks for help. Instead, he collects junk and sells it, works until the fatigue is evident in his face and stooped body. It is amazing what he finds, how much he finds, and how he can turn that into a subsistence income.

When I met him, Jake was volunteering at a local community center for senior citizens: sweeping,

City government saw that same conscientiousness and fidelity to his tasks and hired him, part time. That has proven to be a good move for both the city and for Jake.

I trust him. I give him money to go purchase things needed for the work he does for me. He


keeps me well informed and accounted to. When an item disappeared in a nearby yard, neighborhood fingers were instantly pointed at Jake. Why? Seemingly because he is poor, different. They were wrong. I know it.

I trust him with my home, my family. He has earned my trust and deserves it. While I was going through a prolonged physical crisis recently, Jake was careful to express his own interest and concern for me, inquiring often of my wife and assuring me that his church was praying for me.

It is hard to break off conversation with Jake, because of his social awkwardness. I have learned to talk to him. Yes, it is usually on a level which is out of the norm for most of my casual conversations, but he seems to enjoy it so. I seldom come away from those times without learning something, perceiving something new in Jake that often resembles wisdom and insight.

In my public role as missionary and minister, folks like to send me those gems of email humor.

You know, those which are sometimes funny, sometimes silly … and sometimes sad.

The sad ones, for me, are those which militate against helping the poor –“everybody should pay their own bills, make their own way” – or rail against the various categories of marginalized and uncomely men and women, as though they are by default guilty of creating their own plight; “Don’t hold ‘em up with my tax money! Make ‘em work like I do!”

Another part of this strange matrix, again in my role as minister of the gospel and missionary, is those who defend the idea that humanitarian help through the Church must always be tied to an opportunity to evangelize, frequently bordering on the definition of bribery, with food, care, or shelter offered in a “deal” to attain the desired result.

As a man called to proclaim the power and love and gospel of Christ in both word and deed, it is always my deep desire and longing to see men and women accept the amazing provisions of life in Jesus.

As I strive to touch and help and uplift the marginalized of our world, my motivation, however, is simply that of doing what I know Jesus would do in the same situation. I can truly be His hands in action in the world of 2011.

If I am properly motivated, God will take care of attaining that worthy, priority goal, like in the instance of Jake. I can still relive that day when he told me about his personal encounter with Jesus. Jake’s life situation is still among the toughest I know. But there is that spiritual anchor, which wasn’t there before!

I’m only passing on to Jake the mercies and unmerited favor which God has consistently given me in my life. I realize that I love him, like a brother.

In fact, Jake reminds me a bit of my own, first-born brother, David – his real name. David couldn’t manage for himself. He ultimately became a ward of the state, supported by taxpayer money. An early-infancy illness left David with

lifetime challenges and a social helplessness. My parents and family never abandoned him. They did all they could, as long as they could. There came a day when society needed to step in and help, and it did.

There is a huge list of public responses to David, especially from our faith community. People loved him and treated him normally. They tended to focus on his strengths,

while recognizing his weaknesses. They mourned with us when he died.

I never have, and never will, ask Jake how he got into his lifestyle. It doesn’t matter. It wouldn’t change anything. I’m just going to share those mercies of God with him and watch the Lord work in his life, in His time, in His ways.

Just my point of view, but I am so confident that I am aligned with God’s Word, and the teachings of Jesus. I have discovered gospel proclamation in word and in deed. There is no turning back.

I just want more Jakes in my life. |

Don TuckerDon Tucker is a career missionary to Africa, Director of Africa AG Care – USA, and Editor of Embrace.

10 EMBRACE SPRING 2011 SPRING 2011 EMBRACE 11

Networking has become one of the most widely used and coveted concepts within community development circles and other

social organizations. Everyone, it seems, is networking these days. Though networking can be defined in various ways, ultimately, it is about organizations, institutions and individual actors joining forces around a common concern.1 Networking is also about building relationships with others to share knowledge, goods and experiences, and to learn from each other with a common goal in mind.2

For the purpose of this article, I propose to define networking as a process whereby a group of people, individuals, organizations, and interest groups establish a working relationship with the purpose of sharing information, promoting a common agenda, sharing experiences and lessons from their work, and forming a critical mass that can catalyze a wider change. Organizations network for a number of reasons. They do so to exchange information and to increase cooperation and impact. By working together, organizations can improve the quality of their work by sharing knowledge and resources.

Why Network with the National Church in Compassion Ministries?

Though it seems obvious that sending churches would and should work with the local church, this has sadly not always happened. And, sometimes what has been called “partnership,” has in reality been merely paternalism under the guise of cooperation. Therefore, it may be helpful to specify some of the reasons why it is essential that sending churches network with the national church:

PROxIMITY: The national church is close to the poor through their local churches, and as a result

has a greater accumulation of local knowledge.

PRESENCE: Partnering entities3 may come and go, but the national church has a presence in the country as a whole, and is integrated in society at the most grass-roots, community level.

SUSTAINABILITY: If our work is to be sustainable, there is a need for our permanent presence.

NETWORKS: The national church is often a member of a number of networks. Participation in these networks/alliances facilitates learning.

RESOURCES: The national church is best equipped to mobilize members and locate needed materials.

MODELS OF NETWORKING There are three proposed models to consider:

1. The Isolation Model2. The Involvement Model3. The Empowerment Model

In the isolation model, the partnering entity works directly with the community, but without the involvement of the national church.


One example of this model involved a partner who raised the necessary funding to build a very compact and beautiful hospital. The hospital was supposed to operate under the national church’s health department. However, the missionary ignored strengthening his relationship with the national church and, ultimately, invested time in building a strong relationship with the community. This resulted in the bishop of the diocese withdrawing the support of the church from the project, and for at least six years or more those buildings have been unused (“a wasted resource”), and the government has transferred all the nurses out of the hospital.

Effective networking with the national church in compassion ministries requires both a change in the way we think, and in the way we act:

The partnering entity works directly with the community but involves the local church in its work by encouraging prayer. They may also consult with the local church

CHANGE IN THINKINGThe national church would need an understanding of the significance of compassion ministries

and its place in its ministry as well as the role (“expertise”) of the partnering entity. Conversely, all partnering entities may need to understand the value of work already being done by the national church.

CHANGE IN ROLESThe national church needs to become a primary agent of transformation carrying out initiatives in or with the community.

Partnering entities, both missionaries and otherwise, need to change roles from being primarily an implementer of projects or a funding source to being a supporter of the national church in a facilitative role as it carries out its compassion ministries mandate. Note that it does not mean that the partnering entity(ies) cannot be involved in direct implementation of projects.

The partnering entity envisions and mobilizes the Church to carry out compassion ministries at the community level. The church responds to the needs of the community or mobilizes


the community to respond to its own needs. A partnering entity may be invited to provide technical expertise that the local church lacks.

The relationship works best if the partnering entity acts as:

1. A catalyst to help with vision casting.

2. A facilitator to enable the national church to carry out compassion ministry.

3. A secondary partner, standing back from the process and allowing the national church to take ownership.

4. An advisor, trainer, and supporter to build the capacity of the church.

CONDITIONS FOR EFFECTIVE NETWORKINGIn order for there to be genuine networking and partnership, the partnering agency or individual must, above all else, seek to understand the context. They must try to understand the vision of the national church for compassion ministry and must try to facilitate that vision. If the national or local church is lacking a vision for compassionate ministry, the partnering entity can help to cast and create a vision, but with deference, respect, and the involvement of the leadership of the national church. Furthermore, this must be done in the context of humility and respect for the national church, and not in the more common paternalistic patterns.

The process of vision casting may seem slow and tedious, but it is an essential ingredient if the national church is to have ownership in the project. In the absence of ownership by the national church, it is unlikely that the endeavor will succeed. This will require, first and foremost, that the partnering agency invest time in building a relationship. National churches in the majority world (often referred to negatively as “the developing world) especially tend to be highly relational. Consequently, western ideas of productivity will prove unfruitful in the absence

of genuine relationships. For these relationships to succeed, they must be clothed in humility, godliness, and honesty. Transparency and accountability will prove crucial.

Unfortunately, one does not have to look far to find examples where this preferred approach has not been applied. For instance, at times in the not-so- distant past, our partners only vaguely informed the national church or local church that funds for a particular project were available, without being transparent about how much. Thus, when the funds proved insufficient for the initiative, doubts and suspicion arose due to a lack of accountability between the parties involved. Mutual trust, then, is essential for lasting and beneficial networking relationships. This reciprocity of trust cannot be over-emphasized. It seldom happens without straightforward, persistent intentionality.

However, when the kind of mutual respect which comes only from investing relationally and getting to know one another is in place, the possibilities are truly endless. |

Notes: 1 Heather Creech and Terri Willard, Strategic Intentions: Managing Knowledge Networks for Sustainable Development (Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2001), 19.

2 P.G. H. Engel, “Daring to Share: Networking Among Non-government Organizations,” in Linking with Farmers: Networking for Low-external Input and Sustainable Agriculture (London, U.K: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1993). Mario Padron, Networking and learning, in Reflexion, volume 1, no.1. Donald L. Plucknett, Nigel J.H. Smith and Selcuk Ozgediz, Networking in International Agricultural Research, (New York: Cornell University Press, 1990), 224.

3 Throughout this article the term “Partnering Entity” (or its plural) will be used to refer to a variety of individuals and agencies, including long-term missionaries, short-term missions teams, sending churches, and missions agencies. In addition, the reader may think of other partnering agencies or individuals that would properly fit this description.


Dissecting EmbraceA s a high school student some years

ago, I experienced one of many rites of passage for that period of life. It came

through dissecting a frog! I can’t remember why it was such a big deal. In fact, I can’t remember a thing about it. I know I did it, though evidently not consciously learning anything lasting from the experience.

This irresistible introduction brings me to the point of this edition’s Opinion. Let’s open up Embrace and take a look inside, make an effort to understand a bit of the what, how and why of this publication. We don’t want our readers coming to the end of any edition of Embrace without “consciously learning anything lasting from the experience.” So, let’s grab our publishing scalpels and take a look!

Perhaps the first issue to be dissected concerns the question of graphic appearance versus textual content as a design choice. Embrace may appear to defy current trends and go heavier on text than other, contemporaneous publications higher in graphics. That is an intentional choice. We are extremely proud of our graphic design, and yet, very intent on guarding space for words in order to accomplish our goals and be faithful to our values. While we strive to present a work that will be motivational toward faith-based compassion effort, we really want to be informative as well. It may be true that a picture is worth a thousand words, yet we believe we are at a place where you, our readers, need those thousand words. We need to speak to you to reinforce the scriptural foundation for humanitarian effort in Jesus’ name, as well as issues of values pursued, best practice standards, collaboration with stakeholders, and sustainability. Of course, there are other issues as

well, which make for effective work.

Another aspect we would focus your attention on is the features and content of Embrace.

We consider the inside front cover to be informational and directional. There you will find information about our staff, the current cover, content, and perhaps a recommendation or two for further reading or research.

The articles of each issue will be testimonial, informational, and, at times, even a bit instructional. They will be written by a variety of national practitioners, missionary practitioners, and guest writers from within and beyond Africa.

One Man’s Opinion may be a complaint topic, vision casting, even provocative at times, believing that healthy dialogue will serve to press us forward toward great success for Him.

The inside back cover, we reserve for items which we intend to be attention-grabbers. We hope that we can present materials which will cause our readers to clip and paste that page, repeatedly reflect on it, or in the case of something which might stimulate thought or even disagreement, perhaps motivate an email, a letter, or a phone call to Embrace.

So there, in a few words, is a dissection of Embrace. I might add, the job was not nearly as messy or smelly as opening up that frog! In the future, we may get into the brain and heart: the thinking, philosophy, and feeling behind Embrace. That may require more words and more pages!

- The Editor



Pentecostal holiness of the eschatological church will not allow its people to stand idly by

while government and social systems allow creation to suffer. God never, whether in fifth-century BC or twenty-first century AD, gave the care of creation to the pagan world but always to His called and redeemed. Could this be the reason for the world’s failure with all their “programs” to eradicate this disparity? This work calls for ministry, not more programs. Carol Wiseman, “Eschatalogical Holiness: A Pentecostal Call to Global Responsibility, Obligation and Power and Responsibility of the Church” (paper presented at the annual conference of the Society for Pentecosal Studies, Lakeland, FL, March 14-16, 2002), 312-313

16 EMBRACE SPRING 201116 EMBRACE SPRING 2011

Embrace Magazine

Documents

Transcript of Embrace Magazine