RACIAL RECONCILATION AND JUSTICE  

By Randy Nabors, January 2011\For the Conference on Racial Reconciliation and Justice, at New City Fellowship, St. Louis, MO.

     Racial Reconciliation is the application of the Gospel to our present racial and ethnic situation and circumstance.  It is an application of biblical justice, peacemaking, and mercy.  At its’ theological root it is a statement of faith concerning the common image of God in all human beings, the blood commonality of all nations (Acts 17:26), and the combining of the alienated into one new man and in that one body both reconciled to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility (Ephesians 2: 14-18).  It is in addition the sorrowful and repentant acknowledgement of the sins of race pride; those proud thoughts, feelings, and actions of racial superiority and the consequent dehumanization of other races.  It is the repudiation of the historic exploitation and cruelty to other human beings due to racial distinctions in the form of man-stealing, slavery, family destruction, sexual and physical abuse, economic and social discrimination with its’ attendant segregation in various areas of life. 

   

    Conversely it is also forgiveness for those things suffered due to historic group and/or personal acts of injustice based on racism, tribalism, and ethno-centrism.

   Christian Racial Reconciliation is the Gospel attack on the sin and activities of racism and its’ attendant effects.  It is the evidence of the love of God through the repenting, confessing, healing, forgiving, and serving ministry of the saints to bring about peace between alienated believers of different races and ethnicities.  It is the extension of that peace to the non-believing community as well who have suffered the pain and debilitation of racial and ethnic rejection.  It is the taking of responsibility for the sins of our forefathers and the lingering affects of their actions.  It is the repenting of any of our own present attitudes or behaviors that continue to harm others due to race, ethnicity, and their corresponding cultures.

   It is the desire to know where offense is or has been, and where it lingers personally or systemically, and the assertive correction of circumstances.  It is not simply a desire to get on with things and forget about the past.  It is not the denial of race by calling it a mere social construct and thinking that by this denial racism will be ended.  It takes racism as a fact of history and life, whatever its’ origin. 

    In the life of the local church it is the active desire to include people through understanding and learning their cultures and enlarging the cultural scope of worship forms as long as they are Biblical.  It is the necessary attitude change that brings people to become like Jesus and take the form of a servant to each other and to whole people groups as well.  Paul demonstrated this amazing Jesus type love, of becoming a slave to whole people groups, so that he might win them for Christ.

I Corinthians 9:19-22:

            Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to

            win as many as possible.  To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews.  To

those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not

under the law), so as to win those under the law.  To those not having the law I

became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am

under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.  To the weak I became

weak, to win the weak.  I have become all things to all men so that by all possible

means I might save some.”

    It is not simply the sitting together in one pew but our life together in friendship; yokefellows in the cause of the Gospel, shoulder to shoulder in the cause of justice, heart to heart in the application of mercy.  It is the appreciation of God given differences, the celebration of culture and history, and the tenacity and intentionality of relationship despite that history and those differences.  It is the living model of the heavenly vision of the New Jerusalem appearing in the life of the local congregation.

   Racial reconciliation is/and are the healing choices we make concerning the effects of race, ethnicity and culture in our society.  Those choices include the socio-economic challenges that face our society.  True reconciliation is not merely accepting the status quo of resultant poverty populations as if the history of race and discrimination had no relationship to present circumstances. Reconciliation does not invent causes of racial disparity in almost all demographic data, (be it health, violence, or incomes), rather it acknowledges them and sees them as facts on the ground that must be changed.  It is the acknowledgment that not all have benefited from the positive changes in our society, for which we can all thank God. 

    Reconciliation desires to radicalize all classes of Christians so that we might love, share with, and include the poor in our own worshipping community of believers without paternalism or patronizing.  It is the active missionary dynamic to raise up indigenous leadership among the poor across racial lines. 

    Reconciliation is not satisfied with mere welcome of those who are different; it does not leave the timetable of inclusion to coincidence and chance.  It is not merely the toleration of others nor is it simply allowing them to carry on in the manner to which they are accustomed.  It is the pursuit of others (especially by the majority culture), it is the removal of barriers to others; it is faith tied to imagination and then acted upon to change the current racial makeup of our congregations, schools, and institutions.

    At one and the same time it is not nor can it be an arrogant self-righteous demand that all minority groups surrender themselves up to be a minority within the churches of dominant cultural majorities.  To demand the dismantling of historic minority cultural institutions such as churches and schools especially in their particular population context of racial and ethnic communities gives no thought to how those institutions preserve culture, provide a healthy self-image, and give avenues to power for those not usually given those avenues in broader society. 

    While having said that one must not retreat from the call to all believers, especially to all believers in our particular denomination, to participate in meaningful strategies for all of our people to pursue, engage in, and be blessed by racial reconciliation.  We need to think not only of reconciliation to be the property or concern of those congregations in mixed communities or by those missionaries to ethnic communities but all believers in a multi-cultural nation.

    True racial reconciliation in our context means that the majority has to begin an active repentance of ignorant bliss in terms of the racial history of our own denomination, and the re-ordering of created institutional, political and social barriers that hinder the inclusion and progress of minorities into the mainstream of denominational life.

      True racial reconciliation means that minority congregations cannot and must not assume they can remain aloof and distant from majority culture congregations, presbyteries, and denominational life.  They must take the risk of challenging their own people to “own” the denomination; to learn its’ culture, its’ systems, its’ politics and fully participate in its’ life while preserving what it best in their own culture.  While reconciliation cannot mean pure assimilation into the majority and then the obliteration of minority culture it cannot happen at all if minorities will not take the risk of entrance, interaction, and fellowship, and the possible involvement of majority representatives in their community and institutions.

    This is an audacious thing to ask of those who may have in the past attempted just such an entrance into the mainstream of denominational or evangelical life and been rejected or stonewalled because of their race or ethnicity.  How dare we ask them to try again?  Amazingly, we see many examples of those who have been rebuffed continuing to love, continuing to be willing to accept those who come in love, and continuing to try to engage in meaningful fellowship.    We dare to ask because love, and sacrifice, and discipleship are asked of all of us, all the time.  No one ever gets a day off from being called by Jesus to radical love and discipleship, there are no vacations from it, and no expiration dates.

    The book of Galatians gives us a powerful challenge to celebrate our oneness and unity in Christ without forcing others to become just like us, without demanding that Gentiles become Jews.  Men don’t become women in our theology; they simply but meaningfully become one in Christ.  Even though Peter was undoubtedly a Jew he was expected to not let that be a barrier to eating with Gentiles and his not eating with them was a statement that they wouldn’t be good enough until they were circumcised and became and acted like people who were separate and distinct from all others.  We do have differences, but our oneness in Christ must allow us to know when to celebrate and enjoy them, and when not to let them divide us.

    “Behold how they love one another” is especially poignant when there have been historic events providing reason for hatred and alienation.  Loving each other in spite of that reason is a powerful witness to unbelievers.  Doctrinal unity without an organic unity is not much unity at all and the world has a hard time knowing we are Christians by the love they don’t see between us (John 17:23). 

    One of the barriers to reconciliation is when the oppressed or injured deserves justice, but does not receive it.  Justice sometimes requires retribution and restitution.  To restore the balance, the equity between persons or groups, there is often a payment due.  Individuals and groups can feel this requires reparation in blood, money, vengeance, or if possible replacement and/or restoration of what once was or should have been.  Some may feel it means they deserve their turn at the top or at the trough of resources.

     We cannot bring back the lives we have ended, or the quality of life someone deserved but has forever lost.  It is difficult, if not impossible, to go back and undo all the damage and all the changes due to that damage.   Do we take African Americans back to Africa, do we restore their languages, families and customs?  Do we give the Indians their land back, do we unravel every wrong, every piece of property, every advantage given unfairly due to color of skin, family name, and because we had the guns and the power?  Can we give to generation after generation that lost a chance at a good education literacy after they are too old to have it help them economically or after they are dead; do we give them science, and medicine, and political and civic position and inclusion after they are gone?  Can I make up to generations of despairing people deliverance from alcoholism and restore their broken families and give life back to the suicides?

    There is much we cannot do, but there is also what we must do, what God has chosen for us to do,

            to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the

            oppressed free and break every yoke, to share our food with the hungry and to

 to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when we see the naked to clothe him.

To rebuild the ancient ruins and raise up the age-old foundations; to be a repairer

 of broken walls, and a restorer of streets with dwellings. (Isaiah 58:6-12)

Yet, sometimes justice cannot be vindicated.  Sometimes it must be covered, it must be replaced with the only thing that can do that effectively and that is the miracle of love, and the mercy of forgiveness (Proverbs 10:12).  The mercy of forgiveness is unfathomable and inexplicable, yet it is absolutely effective in making relationships right.  It is a moral power which does not gloat in its power.  It simply cancels the past; though it might always remember it, be able to articulate it and have a realistic appraisal of the full extent of the damage it has done.  Though those who show mercy may remember, they are no longer oppressed by the memory.  It is freedom, for both the perpetrator and the victim, so that one is freed from guilt and the other from shame and bitterness. 

Shane Claiborne in his foreword to John Perkin’s book, Let Justice Roll Down (Regal Books), says,
“There is no doubt that we need justice to roll down like water; those words of the prophets drip from Perkin’s tongue.  And yet justice without grace still leaves us thirsty.  Justice without reconciliation falls short of the Gospel of Jesus.  Love fills in the gaps of justice.  John has lived for us what it looks like when justice and reconciliation kiss.  After all, he did not just call for an end to the hate crimes of the Klu Klux Klan, but he became friends with a reborn Klansman.”

We are made dumb in the face of love, we stand in awe of its power; to nail Jesus to a cross and to hear him pray that the very ones doing so would be forgiven.  For Saul to hear Steven cry out as he died, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” (Acts 7:60)  It is God at work in the making of saints and it is what saints do.  It is more than turning the other cheek; it is giving mercy for murder, kindness for killing, and even absolution for genocide.  How can that be done?  It cannot, without the power of God.  That kind of love is so foreign to us because it is very much what the love of God is like, and for that we  need God’s power to “grasp how wide, and long, and high, and deep is the love of Christ.” (Ephesians 3:14-19)  We need the power of God to love, and the power of God to know love.  Reconciliation is peacemaking love, and it is a living example of the power of God unleashed in the world.

END.

MORALITY AND JUSTICE

  Recently the U.S. Congress voted to repeal the policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which the Clinton Administration had settled on as a compromise to allow homosexuals to serve in the military without being open about their sexual behavior or inclinations.  There were many Conservatives opposed to that policy when it was first established since it opened the door to homosexuals serving in the military without being asked about their sexual orientation.  The policy did allow homosexuals to serve but its' enforcement continued to lead to the expulsion of known homosexuals, some of whom openly admitted their orientation and did so for the political motive of changing the policy.  There didn't seem to be much acknowledgement, let alone celebration, of the fact that the DA/DT gave homosexuals the opportunity to serve their country honorably as long as they were able to control their behavior and did not openly advocate their life-style.
    As a former Army Chaplain I have known that there were homosexuals serving in the military and I in fact was gratified that our nation and our military did allow them to serve under certain conditions, namely that it was something held as their private life or struggle but would not openly be condoned.  I take the position that some folks that would be referred to as "Gay" are conflicted about their desires, that they haven't figured themselves out yet, but that they can be effective soldiers if their behavior does not corrupt themselves or others.  I remember the late Dr. Robert Rayburn, CH (COL), US ARMY speaking about this subject when I was in seminary.  He encouraged us to treat people with compassion and that Chaplains had an obligation to do so.  At the time I was surprised he took such a loving and humane view of it, but I have tried to follow his admonition in my service as a Chaplain.
    I have experienced female soldiers coming to me and telling me that they felt pressured by lesbians in the unit, and that due to the fraternization between ranks it was becoming coercive and threatening.  My challenge to them of course was to make an official complaint, to use the Chain of Command, but they were fearful to do so.  I did inform the Commander of this dynamic in his unit, though he didn't seem to be too bothered by it.
    Here of course is where the military, and our entire society, needs to understand the impact of morality on issues of justice.  Our society seems to continually be moving to the divorce of these two things from each other, that morality is a private issue and that it is unjust to prohibit or contain certain moral practices.  In fact Justice is being redefined so as to permit individuals to follow their own private sense of morality and that Government should have little or nothing to do with it.  In a culture that no longer has a consensus of moral absolutes it is extremely difficult for that culture (our culture here in the United States) to establish a line of morality and hold to it.  Justice becomes equated with morality and Justice is defined as the right to live as I please and not have anyone hurt me or deprive me of the freedom to do and live as I please.
    It is my contention that Justice and Morality are inseparable but yet distinct.  There is a morality inherent in the concept of Justice, there is real justice to others in living a truly moral life in society, and there is resultant injustice in a life-style of immorality.
    Having stated this I realize that there are many instances of "moral" people, religious people, self-righteous people in fact, who created a system of injustice and maintained it while being otherwise "honest, law abiding, decent" folks.  They were in fact immoral by allowing the enslavement, disenfranchisement, and discrimination against people of color in this country.  Racial attitudes of superiority were in fact issues of pride, selfishness, fear, meanness, and a despising of the image of God in fellow human beings and led to murder, man stealing, rape, exploitation,etc.  The immorality displayed by otherwise so called "decent" folks gave the lie to their claim of morality.  Nazis did the same thing in running concentration camps.  They showed up to work on time, did an "honest" days work by not shirking their duty, didn't steal from the prison offices, etc. all while they were murdering millions.
    To those people in their daily interactions there was a "semblance" of moral living which made their lives comfortable and predictable.  Stealing from each other was wrong, even while washing off the blood from their boots due to what had just happened down at the slave block or the gas chamber.  I believe it was the moral consensus that moved the North to fight for the abolition of slavery (and make no historical mistake in assuming that there would have been a Civil War in America without the spirit and drive of the Abolitionists).  It was the moral consensus in England in the face of Ghandi's resistance to British tyranny in India that moved them to finally give way to the cry of that nation for independence.  I believe it was the moral consensus of America that gave way to the moral superiority of a non-violent demand for civil and voting rights from people of color, especially in the South.  Without that moral consensus Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have gone the way of  those (unknown but to God) justice advocates in the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea and Nazi Germany.  I also believe that the moral consensus that worked for the good of justice in those instances was an inherited Biblical sense of Justice, and one that particularly came from the  perspective of the Protestant Reformation.
    We are approaching an equal hypocrisy though from a different angle.  Without a Biblical consensus of morality in a culture it will become more and more difficult for that culture to actually define or defend justice while it in fact begins to deny justice to those who maintain resistance to immoral acts.  In short, evil will be called good and good will be called evil.  Without a commitment to true justice arising from a moral consensus then injustice can be explained away, redefined, and even defended as necessary.  This has been done illogically yet nonetheless extensively by exploitative oppressive powers and governments.
    Our challenge is always to champion both of the things that help us to truly love our neighbors as ourselves, and that is being moral and being just.  Many people in our nation who in fact live fairly moral lives have surrendered the high ground of conscience to those who play the justice card when it comes to sexual orientation.  This erosion has led to a tidal wave of changing laws which leads to the silencing of those who prophetically warn of the consequences to our children, our marriages, our military, our health, our culture, and our freedoms of speech and religion.  Tolerance and acceptance has in fact led to coercion, casting a blind eye to cabals and groups of homosexuals advancing each other (in government, the military, business, education, and entertainment) and getting revenge against their critics.  Why should any of our children be mocked and ridiculed in a classroom if they believe that homosexuality is an immoral behavioral choice but their teacher now teaches a section of curriculum that labels our child's belief as hate speech (declaring good evil and evil good)?
    Let me state plainly that I believe that homosexual behavior is immoral.  That it should be proscribed behavior, especially in the military.  That all homosexuals should be treated with common courtesy and respect, even sympathy, and called to repentance and forgiveness in Jesus Christ.  I believe that if our nation could agree that this behavior is immoral (once again) we would have no need to advocate a change to the constitution defining marriage as possible only between a biological male and a biological female.  I am afraid however that we will have to fight this descent into the legitimization of immorality by just such an amendment.
    My hope at the present, and my fervent plea for the military is for Commanders to be very pro-active in discipline against any form of sexual harassment, coercion, promiscuity, or political and career game playing due to sexual orientation issues.  Unless our Commander and Chief and highest ranking officers make this standard policy some units are going to become nasty places of intrigue and in-fighting, and that is already bad  enough in our military bureaucracy.

The Kingdom and the Middle Class

Mark 10:25 says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (NIV)  I would not want us to miss the the challenge of this verse because we consider ourselves "middle class" and not "rich."  I would say our wealth and power as middle class Americans would put us solidly in the group Jesus was speaking about.
   Can wealthy people go to heaven, can they get into the Kingdom?  Our American Evangelicalism casualizes this teaching of Jesus by immediately referring to verse 27 where it says, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." (NIV)   So we tell folks if you just believe in Jesus you will be saved, and that salvation is for everyone, and salvation is a miracle of God's saving grace.  So, no problem, rich people can indeed be brought into the Kingdom.  What goes unsaid is the implication that they can keep their money too.  This implied we do completely away with the sting and the radical edge of this passage of Scripture.
    It is just this dismissal of the radical sayings of Jesus that causes folk to miss the Kingdom.  The Kingdom is about radical choices, ultimate commitments, giving away all we have, leaving all we have, taking persecution, being last so others can be first.  It is the proof of whether we have chosen to follow Jesus or not.
   I am not at all speaking of a salvation by works, but one of a real and genuine faith that counts the cost and is willing to pay it.  Without real faith we cannot be saved, and without a faith that is lived out in very practical ways one can question whether or not someone really has it.  How can we preach the Kingdom without calling people to real Kingdom choices?
    Before someone accuses me of universalizing the call of Jesus to this rich man as applicable to all wealthy people let me say I do not know if Jesus is calling on you, the reader, to sell everything you have and give it to the poor.  I am saying Jesus does universalize the dilemma of the rich.  He says it is hard for them to enter the Kingdom.  I would say it is hard for all of us to make choices that cost us everything, or seem to cost us everything, or that will demand real sacrifice.  I would universalize that issue of choice, which is really the issue of idols.  Will we follow Jesus and trust Jesus to take care of us, or do we want to follow Jesus with our material suitcases so as to make sure we can live in the style to which we have grown accustomed?
    Among American Christians I see this struggle over radical choices played out most when it comes to our children.  We can't take them into the inner city, we can't take them to the mission field, because we are responsible for their safety and happiness.  We can't expect them to be happy in a cross cultural church with kids from the hood when they can find so much more happiness in a full service mega church that provides all their needs. Shouldn't we let our children decide what church our family should be in based on their feelings of security and expressions of where they are comfortable?  My short answer is, "nope."  What middle class child wouldn't want to be in an environment where everything is provided, not threatening, and caters to his or her self-indulgence?
    One of the interesting things to me is to see missionaries shelter their children in American schools wherein their kids spend most of their "cultural" experience as tourists in buses that pass by the masses, get tightly wrapped around their own families, and begin to see missionary service as a family business and not as a risky and sacrificial choice.  What I see most often is the creation of an Evangelical elite, in the name of helping our children to grasp a "Christian World and Life View."  The view from here is that it looks like the same old status quo and not too radically Christian at all.
     I thank the Lord for the four children the Lord gave us, one adopted and three by birth, all of them Covenant children and all of them ours.  I love them, want the best for them, want them to be smart and well educated, want them to have every door opened for them if possible.  I don't want any harm to come to them.  I really would like them to have every material opportunity and not to be poor or have to suffer.  If the truth be told I want the same for myself.  Our struggle as a family, as parents, as children is that we are sinners and we love our idols.  These choices are as hard for us as anyone.  At the same time I want my children to be the kind of folks of whom the world is not worthy.  I want them to be radical, completely committed, awe inspiring spiritual people who follow Jesus in all that they do.  I want them to shake and shape the world for the glory of Christ.
    I would like to be that kind of person too.  Can these two desires work together, are they mutually opposing?  My take from the teaching of Jesus is that they are mutually exclusive if we cannot hold our stuff, our possessions, and even our families, with loose hands.  Wouldn't it be great to live so for Jesus, so focused on him and his kingdom that you didn't care about worldly stuff, but he kept making you rich anyway?   I think that is the way it ought to happen, that if money is what Jesus wants you to have he forces it on you.
    All the stuff about generous giving, stewardship, managing our money in a Biblical way is fine if we don't come to the conclusion that the kingdom is about us being out of debt, having great investments, and leaving lots of stuff for our children when we die.  I believe in every Scriptural principal, but I don't want my faith disguised or distorted as American entrepreneurial and pragmatic genius.  It can become just another congregation of materialism in the Prosperity Gospel Denomination.  It is the obedience that comes from faith that we seek.
    We are not preaching the kingdom, or living it, if we mask the hard choices for ourselves, our children, and our churches.  Mark 10:29ff. "I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields-and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.  But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

The Farmer's Tale in City Streets.

Today I was trying to outline our strategy for ministry to a young man I am hoping will come on our staff to be a community evangelist.  We spoke together of the challenge of reaching children and seeing how excited they are when someone enters their life and loves on them.  We remembered children who were so bright eyed in coming to Bible clubs, Sunday School, tutoring, summer camp.  Then we spoke about what seems to happen in middle school and when kids reach puberty.
    Of all the many children we first met, of all the children we have shared Jesus with and included in our ministry and programs, so many of them have wandered away as they entered the teen years.  Boys making girls pregnant, producing more girls and boys.  The good news is there have been a few that have hung on, followed Jesus, and given back to the Lord.  The tragedy is that most have not.   We spoke of the challenge of how over the lifetime of our ministry we have seen the inner city community go from a culture that had a church tradition (at least somewhere in the extended family) to the current culture where we now see grandparents who themselves did not grow up in church, with that repeated in their children and their grandchildren.  We encounter African American kids with absolutely no experience of church, and that is something that has radically changed in the South.
    :Unfortunately I also spoke today to a grandmother who did grow up in our church, (I have known her since she was a girl herself) whose daughter has been making babies by different men, and whose lifestyle forced the State to take away her children.  This neglectful mother did grow up in our church, but the culture and drugs of the inner city seems to have won, for now.  When I say "for now" I imply that the story is not finished yet, because we have seen that to be true as well.  We have seen kids we invested in, loved on, pursued and prayed for but who then seemed to disappear come back, sometimes years later.  The seed of the Word finally took root, and they came home, to the Lord Jesus and to church.  This reality gives us hope, that the Word does not return to God empty, that the Word is on a mission and it will accomplish its' mission.
    What this says to me is that evangelism to urban children must be pursued, no matter how tough it is to continue it as they grow up.  No matter how many obstacles get thrown our way by dysfunctional lifestyles, we must take the Gospel to the poor.  It may not bear fruit right away, and the fruit might seem to fall off and away before we have a chance to pick it, but if the seed takes root, and if God has made their heart good soil it is going to bear fruit, maybe to a hundred fold.
   There will be no fruit if no seed is sown, that is simply the way it works.  If we don't give up we shall reap.  Even if we have to go out weeping, if we bear precious seed, we are going to bring back big bunches of the harvest.  So the battle rages not just in the hearts of  the children, or their parents, but in mine as well.  It is like the farmer listening to the birds who steal the seed, to the insects that devour the plants, to the drought and sun that burns them.  They all say, "stop wasting your time, it is hopeless, we will destroy all you sow."  And I almost believe them, until I see a face I knew once as a little kid, now grown, now singing, now serving, now lifting holy hands to Jesus.  That face may have gone through all kinds of pain, all kinds of trial, even failure, but there was something planted deep in their heart that has maybe only now grown fruit.  And as I sit watching the harvest, even at what I would call a banquet table of those who speak my name and say, "I remember when you came and got me, I remember when you took me here and there, I remember when you told me..."   I forget the words of the birds, the bugs, or the heat.  I'm too busy eating, feasting, on what has grown.

Why Urban Ministry?

  Today I had lunch with someone who was trying to get to know me and he asked me, "why urban ministry?"  I wasn't quite sure how to answer the question.  I don't think I had any choice really, but someone not knowing me or my background might assume that I did.  I know some great men and women of God who did not come from the city, or the inner city, but have been called to it and are being greatly used by God.  I can't pretend that my particular background makes me effective, or that it has somehow resulted in a unique holiness that would allow me to be powerfully used by the Spirit.  I believe God gives gifts the way he wants them, not that God goes looking for people with gifts and hopes they will respond to his call.  I believe he gave me a set of gifts and in his mercy gave me a set of experiences, and training, to prepare me for what I do.  I believe that without holiness and faith and a real of work of the Spirit nothing significant gets done, unless God is going to do something in spite of what we are.  If you think of me pray for that, for holiness and to be used by the Spirit of God.
    Urban ministry of course is my life.  It is how I came to Jesus in the projects of Newark, NJ.  I hold that as a unique present from God, as well as being raised in a single parent home.  These are my credentials, "street cred" if you will.  As I tried to answer the question I began to feel passion rise within me, as I told him we all have to own what is happening in our cities, in my city.  This is my despair, that as Americans, as Christians, we don't own it.  That certain zip codes of our city (Chattanooga) have some of the highest rates of violence in the country, that we have a high unwed pregnancy rate, high infant mortality, high obesity and diabetes.  That after all these years of ministry in Chattanooga (over forty) we still have the same intractable problems in some of the same neighborhoods.  And we don't own it, as if we can hide in our homes and neighborhoods and pretend these are not my problems, this is not my city, this is not my country.  At this point I could no longer speak because I realized I was about to burst into tears and I just stared at the wall for a few minutes.
    It was a surprise to me as I didn't see it coming.  I didn't know just reciting these things would move me, hurt me so.  And I was glad it did and I am unashamed to feel it.  I am ashamed I have done so little and seem to be so ineffective.  Then I see faces in my mind, of those who are coming to church, those who are serving Jesus here, those who are given work, and food, and education, and Jesus.  Then I am glad again, until the next time when I think where we have not come, where some still are, what still remains undone.
   It was a good conversation because we were working on another organization to help the poor, the sick, the ones in need.  I wish we would all cry a little bit, and do a damn bit more.

Theological Reflections on the NCF Core Values Statements

Why I believe it is important for us to talk about the Gospel as “the Gospel of the Kingdom”

As you read through the Core Value Statements we have proposed from NCF St Louis, you may be asking yourself why the phrase “gospel of the kingdom” and kingdom terminology is repeated so often. The simple answer is that this is the terminology Jesus and the Apostles use to describe the Gospel, and there is a critical reason for their use of this language. I believe at our point in church history, we need to re-discover and re-focus on the kingdom in our proclamation of the good news.

By contrast, we have developed a whole use of terminology around the proclamation of the Gospel that has slowly moved so far away from kingdom language that many pastors and preachers of the Word struggle to know what Jesus even meant by that phrase. In its place, we have ended up to often with a gospel that fits our agenda and understanding of what the good news is, and it is part of the reason we have churches that are not committed to reconciliation and justice. This is not to say that our current proclamation of the Gospel is all wrong. Any time we preach Christ, whether from pure motives or even from selfish ambition (Phil 1:17), and I would argue by extension, whether theologically well informed or not, Christ is preached and God is committed to saving any who turn to him. But somewhere in the process if people are not discipled into a better understanding of Christ and the message of the Gospel, the church can limp along with greatly impaired vision and understanding and even become susceptible to practicing horrendous injustice. This is precisely the reason we could have what appeared to be widespread revival in Rwanda in the 1980’s followed by genocide in 1994, where members of the same church were killing their neighbors in the very church buildings where they used to worship.

As evangelical and reformed churches we can quickly respond and conclude that these obviously were not true believers; that they did not understand the true gospel. Okay. But are we willing to look at the history of racism and the cultural values of personal wealth and prosperity in our own denominations and churches and make the same assessment? If lack of concern for the poor and the status quo acceptance of institutional and practical racism and division permeate the life of the American evangelical/reformed church, is it possible we could be open to the same charge as our Rwandan brothers of having missed some critical aspects of the Gospel in our own preaching?

So what is it that is so crucial about announcing the Gospel as “the Gospel of the kingdom” (Paul’s shorthand- “the gospel” Rom 1:16) instead of simply saying something like, “Jesus loves you, invites you to receive his forgiveness and gives you the gift of eternal life with him in heaven”? Who could argue with any of these statements? Of course, if they are properly understood, there is nothing wrong with any of them. The problem is that this way of presenting the Gospel leaves out foundational, crucial information about the nature of the gospel and in turn leaves the message open to being redirected to a self-centered, self-serving idea. When we announce the gospel as the good news of the kingdom, and invite men and women into that kingdom through faith in Christ, the very message itself moves us away from a perspective of God being centered on us and our purposes, to us being called to redirect (repent of) our thinking and become centered on God and his kingdom.

One way to describe the difference is to ask this question: Is the message of the Gospel primarily that we receive Christ as Savior, receive the forgiveness of our sins and get to go to heaven? Or is the message of the Gospel that God has loved this world and determined to redeem it by establishing his eternal, righteous kingdom and that through faith in Christ as the Risen Lord we are individually called to become members of his kingdom community, through repentance and faith, where the ultimate restoration of all things through the unfolding of God’s righteousness in this world has already begun?

If we are not careful, the first way of describing the gospel essentially makes the good news centered on “me” and the call to pursue the kingdom is an add-on that I may or may not be interested in responding to or, worst case scenario, gets redefined as something that simply enhances my cultural values. The calling and content of the “kingdom” can simplistically become increasing the number of souls that are saved. If the Gospel is fundamentally about me, then everything about the Christian life can easily slip into being measured by my concerns- my job, my family, my passions and desires for life (my cultural values)- and God’s faithfulness, in turn, can be measured by how well he is providing for me in each of those areas. But if the Gospel is essentially about the kingdom - the establishment of God’s glory and righteousness over the earth (Hab 2:14) which has begun in full measure with the coming of Jesus the Messiah and through him the defeat of sin and death because of the nature of his death and resurrection; His Lordship over the nations implemented by the anointing of the Spirit upon his people from among all those nations, who is given to establish justice on the earth and give decisions for the poor and broken of the earth through the church, his body (Isa 11, 61, Lk 4, Acts 2, 4, Col 1, Eph 2:10, 4:1-16); and that the culmination of this kingdom will come when he returns and all the kingdoms of the earth become the kingdom of Christ and of God (1 Cor 15) and the new heavens and the new earth, the home of righteousness, are established for eternity (2 Pet 3:13); and then, that the invitation of the gospel is actually meant to be a response to the announcement of this good news and a turning to Christ as the only Messiah and Savior who can deliver us from our own sin and brokenness as well as the sin and brokenness of the world around us, through free forgiveness and the promise of the Spirit to put our lives in line with the purposes of his kingdom (Isa 61)- well then, everything changes.

The gospel is truly good news, not simply because I get to live forever in heaven, but because all the corruption, injustice and destructiveness of death that permeates the nations and the creation itself and even my own life, has been struck a death blow; and in its place God has begun the restoration of all things in Christ. Our whole lives-our heart, soul, mind and body as well as all our relationships and all our resources- are now finally given their ultimate focus and purpose and by the power of the Spirit we can live out this righteousness, restoration and reconciliation of God’s kingdom now, and fully embrace God’s kingdom agenda which includes the reconciliation of men from all nations and cultures to God and one another and then calls us together to especially focus on justice for the poor (Isa 61, Luke 4, 6), the orphan, the widow, the abused and the outcast. This calling, which is the one true calling of all God’s people, regardless of their personal vocation, is worth giving everything to and in fact, gladly costs us everything (Mt 13:45, 46). It will even cost us entering into the sufferings of Christ because the very nations we want to see redeemed are only set free from their own injustice by experiencing love and forgiveness in response to their evil (Lk 6:27-36). But all of this learning to embrace and endure injustice and even death in order to make the love of God known (Phil 3:10) will increasingly be seen as light and only very momentary troubles in comparison to the glory of the new heavens and the new earth that are ours in Christ Jesus (2 Cor 4:16-18). This is the difference between preaching the gospel of the kingdom and preaching a gospel “for me” that easily gets perverted to some form or other of self-centeredness.

So then, the issues of kingdom (Mt 2), righteousness (justice, mercy and humility- Mt 5:1-12; Luke 4:18-19), the Spirit’s power (Mt 12:28) and the practical meaning of the Lordship of Jesus Christ over the nations (Acts 2:34-36), as well as his fulfillment of God’s Covenant promises to Abraham (Gal 3:29), Moses (Heb 3:1-6)and David (Luke 1:31-33), all go hand-in-hand and all are all summarized in the announcement of this “gospel of the kingdom.” When we acknowledge Christ as Lord, we acknowledge his agenda over our lives and it is an agenda that includes reconciliation and justice at its very core.

Barry

Response to Question re:justification and reconciliation

Gladly. The fundamental issue in approaching these texts (in Romans and Galatians) is rooted in understanding the grid through which we are reading them. If we are starting with an unspoken assumption that every text in Scripture, including the texts about justification, are fundamentally addressing the issue of our personal salvation relationship with God only, we are going to read, interpret and apply them in that light. Especially in American evangelical and even reformed circles in the last 25 years, but dating back to the late 1800’s in the ministries of Charles Spurgeon and D. L. Moody and carried on by Billy Graham and others through the 20th century, there has been a focus on personal salvation in such an individualistic and narrow way that it has become almost impossible for many folks to see anything other than this personal-salvation-only issue around justification. The blinders are firmly in place because of countless repetitions and affirmations that this is the only focus of these passages, and folks only see what they see.

If, however, the texts are taken with a larger biblical and covenantal framework in mind and are actually addressing more than that single issue (which I believe the texts themselves support) than we are going to see and interpret these passages in a richer and fuller way. So the question is this: when Paul is addressing these letters to the Roman and Galatian churches and explaining to them in a deeper way the full measure of God’s salvation purposes in this world, is the reconciliation of the nations to one another (expressed as Jew and gentile reconciliation because the Jews were, and still are, the ethnic group through whom God initiated his reconciliation of the world work), as full, equal members of the family of Abraham, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, a central part of understanding the fullness of the gospel proclamation? I believe (along with many others) the answer to that is yes, wonderfully absolutely, and that this issue of reconciliation (to one another as equal members of the family of God) is even at the heart of the discussion of justification in the book of Galatians.

So I will begin with the Galatians 3:6-9 passage: “3:6 Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 7 Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9 So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.”

This passage has wonderful, undeniable, personal application for each of us to understand that our own standing before God is based solely on the finished work of Christ- even as Abraham’s was- but I don’t believe that is actually the primary reason the book of Galatians was written, or what this particular passage is primarily addressing. It seems clear to me now the main reason Paul wrote to the Galatian church was because there were Jewish agitators who were trying to exclude some of the Gentiles from full fellowship in the church community unless they followed certain ceremonial practices of the Law (most notably, circumcision Gal 1:6,7 3:10ff, 5:2-6) as the external proof that they really were “children of Abraham” ( one of Paul’s phrases, based on the Covenant with Abraham - Gen 12, 15, 17- to describe being part of God’s kingdom-salvation community), and that apart from keeping those elements of the Law, they were to be excluded from the fellowship. They were not truly part of the reconciled people of God, particularly with the Jews, the first ethnic group singled out as the people of God, unless they demonstrated their commitment to keep the Law through these important ceremonies.

Paul’s answer to this perversion of the Gospel- and it seems clear the whole letter needs to be read with this issue in mind- is that we are in fact a part of the reconciled community of God’s people only and specifically by faith in Christ, who removed the curse of the Law for us (Gal 3:12-14) because none of us could ever be justified and accepted into the family of God (reconciled to one another as accepted members of God’s family) apart from faith in Christ and by the grace of God.

Paul recalls his confrontation with Peter around this very issue to add weight to his argument (Gal 2:11ff.). The very first mention of the term “justification” is used in 2:16, not as a reference to our standing before God, but as a reference to our standing within the community of God’s people. Peter had been separating himself from the gentile believers by refusing to eat with them. Paul’s argument with Peter is that this action was a clear denial of the implication of the Gospel- 2:14, which he goes on to explain and define more specifically as a clear denial of justification – 2:15ff.

So what do “justification” and the “declaration of right standing” by faith in Christ refer to? Inseparably, our standing before God and our standing with one another. They go hand in hand in the doctrine of justification. As Paul tell us in Ephesians 2, reconciliation with one another was purchased by Christ's death on the cross and is an accomplished fact- we are reconciled, Eph 2:14-18. We are set right with each other, by Christ's work. Our experience and fleshing out of this unity is as much a dynamic process as our personal reconciliation to God is, but we are not called to practice reconciliation as an implication of the gospel: we are called to pursue unity and reconciliation because it is an accomplished part of Christ's redemptive work.

When Paul moves the argument along in Gal 3, he is making a further appeal to his statement in 2:15,16 “we…know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.” His “consider Abraham” statement in 3:6 is not meant to be an attempt to use Abraham as an example of how individuals get right with God, but as a call for a thoughtful reflection that this issue of becoming an accepted part of the community of God’s people, even for Abraham, was only based on faith, and that all who have that faith are blessed along with him, to now be a part of God’s people. This is stated in full force in 3:26-29 – “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Before I go on to the Romans passage, let me point out that the implications of this are enormous for the church. If we cannot talk about justification without talking about being “set right” with, and reconciled to one another in a context of practical covenant community and care….. wellll…. we have a lot of repenting to do.
The Romans 4:13-17 passage (and the whole surrounding context) is saying the same thing as the Gal 3:6-9, 26-29 passages. Paul’s argument in Romans 4 – growing out of the unfolding of his initial statements in 1:5,6 “Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. 6 And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,” is all about the fact that in the Gospel, and in the righteousness of God that is being displayed to the world in Christ, now, through faith in Christ, the nations are brought into this reconciled, covenant community relationship with God and one another. The promise to Abraham - “I will make you into a great nation” (12:2); “count the stars..so shall your offspring be” (15:5); “you will be the father of many nations” (17:4) – is now being realized in Christ, and through faith in him, you too are a part of this community of God’s people: reconciled to God and reconciled to each other as part of the family of God.
I could go on from there, but I think you can get the gist of the argument. Let me shout it from the mountain tops: none of this is meant to undermine all the things we already teach in Sonship or about the nature of God’s grace for us personally or the truths about justification in our relationship/standing with God. It does, however, expand and enrich all that.