Christian Action

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Another issue that has been on my heart and mind....

We are taught that one of our responsibilities as Christians is to take action concerning social issues. Our denominational Manual, for example, in the section under Christian Action Committee, includes the idea that we take leadership roles in organizations that work for “civic and social righteousness.” I would interpret this to mean organizations like, “Right to Life,” or in my local setting, “Kenosha Committee Against Legalized Gambling.”

I am wondering, however, about the methodologies often used in these types of “battles.”

Notice this rather troublesome Scripture passage:

Philippians 2:14-15, “Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe…”

In conjunction with, “Right to Life,” I have carried a picket sign in a protest gathering. Does not that kind of action fall under the category of “complaining or arguing?” Was I, at that moment, shining like a star in the universe?

Here’s another example: I stood and joined the debate in a public hearing regarding the opening of a casino here in Kenosha. While I don’t want it, I’m wondering if the letter-writing, web-posting, badge-wearing, public-debating method is the right approach.

It seems to me that passages like the one quoted above, as well as repetitive themes in Scripture with regard to love, etc., would teach us to limit our “Christian Action” to a positive-approach mentality.

Thus, rather than protesting abortion we should be volunteering for organizations like Care Net that not only provide assistance to those with crisis pregnancies but also teach abstinence classes in schools. Rather than “fighting” against, and complaining about, big tobacco, we should be educating people on the risks of smoking and providing assistance and support for those wishing to quit.

I’m more for “Christian Action” than I’ve ever been but I’m increasingly aware that many of our actions haven’t been very Christian.

Wilson

[Kevin Bockus]

"It seems to me that passages like the one quoted above, as well as repetitive themes in Scripture with regard to love, etc., would teach us to limit our “Christian Action” to a positive-approach mentality."

How would you explain Jesus driving all from the temple area and overturning the tables of the money changers? John 2:12-16

[Wilson L. Deaton]

"It seems to me that passages like the one quoted above, as well as repetitive themes in Scripture with regard to love, etc., would teach us to limit our “Christian Action” to a positive-approach mentality."

How would you explain Jesus driving all from the temple area and overturning the tables of the money changers? John 2:12-16

My initial thought is that Jesus was cleaning his own house.

He would not have done the same thing visiting a pagan temple site. Nor can I can't see him visiting Rome and picketing the local meat market for selling meat that had been sacrificed to idols, etc.

Wilson

[Billy Cox]

How would you explain Jesus driving all from the temple area and overturning the tables of the money changers? John 2:12-16

How much change came from Jesus' rampage in the Temple? It doesn't take alot of faith to believe that the money changers were back in business before Jesus was sentenced to death.

[David Cash]

I've never carried a picket sign and that isn't likely to change soon. On the other hand, in addition to being "nice" there is a place for Christians to take a stand for truth and righteousness, and we can't always do that without offending those who don't like truth and righteousness.

Of course, it is appropriate when we speak out on moral and social issues to be polite. I don't think unsupportable accusations, name calling, etc. represent Christ well. Pretending every popular form of moral rebellion is ok doesn't represent Him well either.

Sooner or later, we have to stand up and say "This is wrong." The challenge is to do it in such a way as to reflect love. I doubt if any of us has succeeded in opposing evil in a loving way 100% of the time, and the closer we are to the people we're disagreeing with, the harder it gets. But that should still be our goal. Maybe the positive steps you mention are part of what it takes to make the "Thou shalt not" statement without seeming hateful.

Oh, and Care Net is a wonderful organization. By all means, give them your support.

David Cash

[Laurie Florence]

Philippians 2:14-15, “Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe…"
Wilson


Are we really "shining like stars in the universe" if we don't speak the truth, even when it makes waves? What's wrong with carrying a pickett sign if we do it in a peaceful way? We can still show love to people, even when we let them know they are in error. In fact, is it really loving to allow people to continue in error without telling them the truth? This doesn't mean you are being argumentative - the truth is the truth and it doesn't need to be debated, only stated. Jesus upset people all the time with the truth. He upset pharisees and money changers. He angered his fellow temple goers on the Sabbath to the point they wanted to throw him over a cliff. He even reprimanded Peter with the truth on a few occassions. Still, in all of this, nobody can question His love and His obedience to our Heavenly Father. I think that if we do our best to follow His example, we're doing the right thing.

[Ron Davis]

and we can't always do that without offending those who don't like truth and righteousness.
David Cash

What do I do about those that don't agree with my definition of truth and rigteousness?

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Are we really "shining like stars in the universe" if we don't speak the truth, even when it makes waves? What's wrong with carrying a pickett sign if we do it in a peaceful way?
....
Jesus upset people all the time with the truth. He upset pharisees and money changers. He angered his fellow temple goers on the Sabbath to the point they wanted to throw him over a cliff. He even reprimanded Peter with the truth on a few occassions.
... I think that if we do our best to follow His example, we're doing the right thing..

I realize this strictly a matter of opinion but I believe that by its nature, and especially by its reputation, picketing is adversarial in nature. It makes us against something or someone. It causes to people to be defensive, etc. Regardless of our motives it does not come off as loving. It comes off as being pushy and demanding.

The examples given, like the money changers, are all examples of Jesus "cleaning house." These were people who were "religious" and supposedly his people. Jesus did not treat "outsiders" that way. Look at how he treated the woman at the well; he didn't lecture her on divorce and the sanctity of marriage. Look how he treated the woman caught in adultery; he told her he didn't condemn her. What about Zacchaeus; there was no lecture about business ethics. This goes even to those who crucified him. With these people he didn't use an argumentative or adverserial manner. His "strong words" were reserved for Pharisees, the moneychangers, his own disciples...

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

"It seems to me that passages like the one quoted above, as well as repetitive themes in Scripture with regard to love, etc., would teach us to limit our “Christian Action” to a positive-approach mentality."

How would you explain Jesus driving all from the temple area and overturning the tables of the money changers? John 2:12-16

How would one single instance of this overthrow the entire teaching of Jesus?

[Kevin Bockus]

.

I realize this strictly a matter of opinion but I believe that by its nature, and especially by its reputation, picketing is adversarial in nature. It makes us against something or someone. It causes to people to be defensive, etc. Regardless of our motives it does not come off as loving. It comes off as being pushy and demanding.

The examples given, like the money changers, are all examples of Jesus "cleaning house." These were people who were "religious" and supposedly his people. Jesus did not treat "outsiders" that way. Look at how he treated the woman at the well; he didn't lecture her on divorce and the sanctity of marriage. Look how he treated the woman caught in adultery; he told her he didn't condemn her. What about Zacchaeus; there was no lecture about business ethics. This goes even to those who crucified him. With these people he didn't use an argumentative or adverserial manner. His "strong words" were reserved for Pharisees, the moneychangers, his own disciples...

Wilson

Wilson, you make a great observation regarding the different approaches Jesus used with the "religious" insiders and the "outsiders". I struggle with some of the same questions you have asked about how we should handle protests, etc. I wish I could say that I have all the answers, but I do not. I do like to play the devil's advocate once in a while, thus my question earlier in the post.
I have some more devil's advocate questions. Is it ok for us to "turn over the tables" and call people "brood of vipers" if we are dealing with "insiders" gone astray. If so, how do we reconcile that with Galatians 6:1 which says, "Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently"? For that matter, how do we explain Jesus' responses in light of this verse?

[Kevin Bockus]

How would one single instance of this overthrow the entire teaching of Jesus?

Hans,

I never said that this one single instance had overthrown the entire teaching of Jesus. I simply asked how we can explain Jesus' behavior. Wilson, it appears, has thought about this in great detail and has given a wonderful explanation in observing a difference in how Jesus responded to "insiders" and "outsiders". Jesus never contradicts the truth of His word.

As a leader in a community values organization, which takes a stand for Biblical values, I have encountered people who do not like that I avoid marches, protests, etc. They will throw Jesus' behavior up and say that if it was okay for Jesus to be that way, it is okay for us. This is one reason why I asked the question I did. Another reason I asked is because I am interested in learning how other Christians and pastors would respond so that I can gain some new insight.

I appreciate the depth of your thoughts in many of the discussions that take place on Naznet. You are a great student and teacher of His Word.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,

I never said that this one single instance had overthrown the entire teaching of Jesus. I simply asked how we can explain Jesus' behavior. Wilson, it appears, has thought about this in great detail and has given a wonderful explanation in observing a difference in how Jesus responded to "insiders" and "outsiders". Jesus never contradicts the truth of His word.

I'm sorry Kevin. My apologies. I guess I've seen too much of completely remodelling the teachings of our Lord, based on these few verses only.

I agree with Wilson. It's kind of similar to the supposedly anti-Semitic phrases in the gospels. Jesus and by far the vast majority of the early church were Jews. The discussion was an internal Jewish one, one we, as non-Jews, should not have use through the ages.

The second principle I would apply is the clear teachings of our Lord versus the less clear ones. In case of doubt, always follow the former.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I wonder if the day will come when Christians will take an attitude about abortion like we presently do on alcohol - it's alright in moderation. In holiness circles a hundred years ago, alcohol was the "abortion rights" issue of the day. Granted, they would have fallen over in a faint had abortion been mentioned - because it involves sex, which . . .oh, never mind.

Those early holiness workers took the stand they did not just philosophically, but because they were working with people whose lives had been destroyed by alcohol. I wonder if the most vocal right to life proponents among us are motivated by a similar ministry. I hope so.

[Randy Wise]

Another issue that has been on my heart and mind....

We are taught that one of our responsibilities as Christians is to take action concerning social issues. Our denominational Manual, for example, in the section under Christian Action Committee, includes the idea that we take leadership roles in organizations that work for “civic and social righteousness.” I would interpret this to mean organizations like, “Right to Life,” or in my local setting, “Kenosha Committee Against Legalized Gambling.”

I am wondering, however, about the methodologies often used in these types of “battles.”

Notice this rather troublesome Scripture passage:

Philippians 2:14-15, “Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe…”

In conjunction with, “Right to Life,” I have carried a picket sign in a protest gathering. Does not that kind of action fall under the category of “complaining or arguing?” Was I, at that moment, shining like a star in the universe?

Here’s another example: I stood and joined the debate in a public hearing regarding the opening of a casino here in Kenosha. While I don’t want it, I’m wondering if the letter-writing, web-posting, badge-wearing, public-debating method is the right approach.

It seems to me that passages like the one quoted above, as well as repetitive themes in Scripture with regard to love, etc., would teach us to limit our “Christian Action” to a positive-approach mentality.

Thus, rather than protesting abortion we should be volunteering for organizations like Care Net that not only provide assistance to those with crisis pregnancies but also teach abstinence classes in schools. Rather than “fighting” against, and complaining about, big tobacco, we should be educating people on the risks of smoking and providing assistance and support for those wishing to quit.

I’m more for “Christian Action” than I’ve ever been but I’m increasingly aware that many of our actions haven’t been very Christian.

Wilson

I have noted that Jesus didn't spend His energy condemning, but spent His energy saving. We obey out of love. Food for thought
Randy

[Marsha Lynn]

.

I realize this strictly a matter of opinion but I believe that by its nature, and especially by its reputation, picketing is adversarial in nature. It makes us against something or someone. It causes to people to be defensive, etc. Regardless of our motives it does not come off as loving. It comes off as being pushy and demanding.

I agree. I can't imagine being able to converse with someone on the "other side" of my picket sign. The sign would be a barrier between us. It's like going into a meeting hiding behind a shield. It isolates us from the rest of the group. If we want to influence those on the business end of our sign, we need to move closer to them and drop the sign.

In my opinion.


Marsha

[Marsha Lynn]

How would you explain Jesus driving all from the temple area and overturning the tables of the money changers? John 2:12-16

People really like that passage, don't they? They want to use it to justify all sorts of "righteous indignation". Yet, the situations to which they want to apply it are so very different than the temple setting.

1. Jesus was in the temple many times over the years. The bleating of sheep and haggling of merchants in the outer courts was an ongoing thing. How many times did he refrain from confronting those who brought greed and commerce into the temple so that he could come back and teach another day?

2. What was happening in the temple courts was an affront to God and those who desired to worship him. Jesus was protesting against the worst of human greed preying on the poorest of worshippers, putting up walls between them and God. This was a great atrocity. Most of the applications of that scene that people try to make to present-day situations have much less to do with the things of God and more to do with their own interests. They are indignant because of things that threaten their own welfare or that of those they love best, not because people around them are being alienated from God by the actions and attitudes of people purportedly working for Him.

3. Turning over the tables in the temple was a "last straw" kind of action on Jesus' part. He was once and for all taking a stand against the Jewish leaders who allowed the temple marketplace to flourish. If we choose this type of action, we need to recognize that it's likely to cost us our lives - or at least our ability to minister as part of the organized church. Jesus' whip didn't fix the temple problem. It merely made a strong point about the value of uninhibited worship while taking him several steps closer to the cross. We need to carefully consider what we hope to gain before we start turning over tables. If our main purpose is to do something about the tables, making powerful enemies who will grant us martyr status might not be our first choice for a strategy. Jesus was going to die soon anyway (at least on the timetable presented in John's gospel). He could afford to make a scene while making a point.

Perhaps there are times when we are called to face martyrdom in order to bring attention to a deplorable situation. But it would be good to remember that martyrdom is a one-time, irreversible event and be very careful about choosing the cause for which we offer to die.

Marsha

[Brian Hammons]

Regarding Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers, I hesitate to respond, because I'm sure I cannot articulate my thoughts into words very well. However, I will try.

I think this account gives us a very deep insight into the despair Jesus felt as he was entering his final days. He was headed for a cross to provide the ultimate sacrifice. I don't think he was railing against the greed of the money changers as much as against the glib approach to sacrifice of the worshippers. Hang in there, and try to follow my thoughts here.

As I understand the role of the $changers, for a price, they would provide one with something to sacrifice. . . a dove, a goat, whatever. I envision people showing empty handed, either because of carelessness, or some other ego-centric excuse, knowing they can "buy" something at the table. It cost them NOTHING except for money.

I surmise that the people entering the temple at that time are not very different from us in that MONEY is not the commodity/possesion we value most. . . it is our TIME. TIME is the only thing we cannot restock once it is gone. To prepare and care for a perfect sacrifice, or to maintain our best, it requires TIME that we don't want to SACRIFICE. How many of us will throw $$$ at a project or cause because we refuse to let go of the TIME that particular "christian action" cause could really benefit from? Giving money actually costs us less that giving our time . That is giving less than our best, and that flies in face of the basic concept of SACRIFICE. I know I have done that, and I pray for forgiveness for it.

In the Old Testament, someone offered an ox(?) to David to sacrifice and he refused it, saying he would not offer for sacrifice something that cost him nothing. I think Jesus turned over those tables in a moment of despair/frustration because of people sacrificing things that really cost them relatively nothing when he was about to sacrifice something that would cost
him everything.

For me, my role in christian action needs to have an element of sacrifice. That sacrifice has to be something I value, not just something I can afford.

Sorry for the incoherent structure, but hopefully, with some additional inspiration, I can fashion this idea into a sermon of some sort.

[David Cash]

What do I do about those that don't agree with my definition of truth and rigteousness?

First, God has revealed His definition of truth and righteousness in Scripture. Now I realize even Christians have their varying interpretations, but murder, stealing, adultery, etc. aren't really open to interpretation. We know they're wrong. The people doing them probably at least suspect that they're wrong. We are under no obligation to present clear cut moral issues as matters of opinion.

As far as those who disagree--it depends on the situation. We don't need to go seeking out sinning people so we can get in their faces. But if somebody stands up and proclaims that he or she has the right to a certain sin, then we are justified in politely saying, "No you don't." As a citizen in a democratic country I'm also justified in voting my conscience on these matters. Also, our pulpits do need to present God's law as the schoolmaster it is for bringing people to God's grace in Christ. At the most personal level, if our lives are consistent and we're decent with other people, sometimes just stating our convictions is enough to cause them to think.

David Cash

[David Cash]

I wonder if the day will come when Christians will take an attitude about abortion like we presently do on alcohol - it's alright in moderation. In holiness circles a hundred years ago, alcohol was the "abortion rights" issue of the day. Granted, they would have fallen over in a faint had abortion been mentioned - because it involves sex, which . . .oh, never mind.



If the current conviction that abortion is murder is correct, then we'll be in real trouble if we decide it's ok in moderation.

David Cash

[David Cash]

Interesting case in point, Wilson. At the company Christmas party yesterday, one of my coworker's gave each of the rest of us a small gift with a Wisconsin Lottery scratch card taped to it. This particular lady is a struggling Christian. My boss who is also a Christian but who spends a lot of time at the local casino was kind of teasing me about taking my picture when I went to cash the thing in and giving the picture to my pastor. (I got a ticket worth three dollars.) I just jokingly told the lady who gave it to me that if my pastor knew, he'd probably want some of it to go in the collection and let it go.

Do I believe in gambling now? No. Would it have helped anybody had I created a scene? I doubt it. Still haven't decided whether to cash the thing in or not. It wouldn't be gambling since I didn't pay for it, but as one who in principle opposes gambling, it's an interesting question.

David Cash

[Wilson L. Deaton]

... Still haven't decided whether to cash the thing in or not. It wouldn't be gambling since I didn't pay for it, but as one who in principle opposes gambling, it's an interesting question.


If you decided not to cash it in, send it here. I'll "dispose" of it for you.

I know of a (Nazarene) church where the did a "ten talents" sermon and gave everyone $10 at the end and told them to invest it and bring the returns to church the next week. Ladies bought ingredients, baked then sold pies, etc. One guy, who was an unsaved relative newcomer showed up the next week with a gift basket and announced it was his plan to raffle it off.

Rather than embarrass this gentleman they let him proceed.

Wilson

[Marsha Lynn]

As I understand the role of the $changers, for a price, they would provide one with something to sacrifice. . . a dove, a goat, whatever. I envision people showing empty handed, either because of carelessness, or some other ego-centric excuse, knowing they can "buy" something at the table. It cost them NOTHING except for money.

Hmm... as someone who never visited the temple at that time, I can't express an independently-drawn opinion on what was happening there. The Bible doesn't tell us that. It only lets us know that whatever was happening stirred Jesus into hostile action. What I've heard is that 'home-grown' sacrifices had become unacceptable. People were expected to buy livestock at the temple for their sacrifices. Only sheep with the "blemish-free" Good Housekeeping seal of approval were accepted. Whether the sheep were actually blemish-free may have been a debated subject, but they were approved for temple sacrifice and that's what mattered. Furthermore, I've heard that the reason there were moneychangers was in order to convert various currency brought by pilgrims into 'temple dollars' in order to buy these animals. It's not at all hard to imagine that by the time a worshipper exchanged his money and bought pre-approved sacrificial livestock the cost would at least double, with the profits taken by the middlemen.

I surmise that the people entering the temple at that time are not very different from us in that MONEY is not the commodity/possesion we value most. . . it is our TIME.

I'm not sure the people at that time were nearly so far removed from the link between time and money as we are in our affluent society. (Talk to anyone working for minimum wage and see if they know how many hours they have to work to buy a ticket to the movie theater versus renting something at the video store.) How many sheep did the Jewish people have to birth, raise, and sell in order to obtain the money to buy a 'blemish-free' sacrificial sheep at the temple?

You may be right in your view, but it seems a little strange that Jesus would take his wrath out on innocent businessmen who were simply servicing people too lazy or apathetic to bring their own livestock with them to the temple. Wouldn't he have chosen instead to teach the people a better approach to worship?

Now ... how do I bring this back to the topic of the thread -- Wilson's initial comments on social action? I don't know that I can do it. I'm only making an observation that I don't think the temple scene equates to waging battle against abortion and gambling. It all goes back to what we hope to accomplish. If our aim is to expose the misdeeds of church administrators who have lost sight of the central message of the gospel and are forming barriers along the path to God for the common people and who refuse to listen to the message of compassion, this may be a precedent. If our aim is to bring abundant life to the hungry, hurting, lonely 'sinners' around us, starting with a whip is perhaps not the best approach.

Marsha

[Randy Wise]

"It seems to me that passages like the one quoted above, as well as repetitive themes in Scripture with regard to love, etc., would teach us to limit our “Christian Action” to a positive-approach mentality."

How would you explain Jesus driving all from the temple area and overturning the tables of the money changers? John 2:12-16

Zeal for His Fathers House

Randy

[Larry Wilson]

I think this account gives us a very deep insight into the despair Jesus felt as he was entering his final days. He was headed for a cross to provide the ultimate sacrifice. I don't think he was railing against the greed of the money changers as much as against the glib approach to sacrifice of the worshippers.

For me, my role in christian action needs to have an element of sacrifice. That sacrifice has to be something I value, not just something I can afford.

Well, Marsha Lynn has already lifte these two salient points for comment, so I guess it strikes a responsive chord. You articulated this quite well.

This is, in fact, a great insight! Thank you! I DO think the story is about the money changers, but you are right in pointing out that there were two participants -- sellers AND buyers! Worship had been reduced to a commercial transaction. No more than pagan incense and candles! Where was the prayer of sincere adoration and devotion, of repentance and atonement? These are the things that grieve the heart of God. And, yes, the stark contrast of this on Jesus' impending sacrifice is dramatic.

This was not so much a "rampage" as a judgement -- not a venting of personal anger, but an act of holy justice.

[Larry Wilson]

I am wondering, however, about the methodologies often used in these types of “battles.”

I’m more for “Christian Action” than I’ve ever been but I’m increasingly aware that many of our actions haven’t been very Christian.


These are almost perennial questions, as they should be. We need constantly to evaluate our approaches to these issues. For those of us who came of age in the 60's, they have a particular significance. Public demonstration was part of the social fabric in those days, and there was little middle ground on many issues.

I think that it cannot be denied that public demonstration has been a powerful force in our world, and that is certainly true in U. S. history and social issues. Abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, temperance, civil rights, and war have been causes greatly influenced by what has happened in the streets. On many of those issues there has been a significant participation by Christians and churches.

I have two basic questions to ask in approaching how we should respond to "Christian Action." The first is simply, "Is it Christian?" In a nearby town, this year there was a controversy over a decision not to allow a pastor to read the Christmas story from the Bible at a Christmas celebration. Frankly, some of the protest was anything but Christian. It should be obvious that there is much that is abhorrently un-Christian about many anti-abortion and anti-gay demonstrations that we've witnessed. We saw the same thing in the sixties -- violent anti-war protests. I think that this is a large part of our reluctance to engage in these public "Christian action" methods.

Jesus spent a lot less time protesting and more time proclaiming! We would de well to emulate Him at this point. This is not meant as an excuse for not standing up against immorality and injustice and advocating vigorously for righteousness in our respective societies, but it does mean that there is a primacy to positive action.

We also misunderstand what the "spiritual weapons" are that Paul admonishes us to use in this warfare. They are forgiveness, mercy, kindness, and all expressions of love. Powerful stuff!

My second question is, "Is it effective?" As already indicated, on many issues public demonstrations have been powerful forces for change. Unfortunately, this doesn't have seemed to be the case in our contemporary "culture wars" in the U.S. Especially on the issues of abortion and homosexuality, what passes for "activism," Christian or otherwise, has been particularly ineffective.

Wilson suggests that maybe we'd do better to support crisis pregnancy centers, "exodus" counseling, etc. and I would heartily agree. I don't think it is ever an either/or proposition. We need to find positive, Christian ways to advocate for social change, to stand for justice and righteousness without ever abandoning the servant mandate to address these issues at the human level with compassion and proclamation.

[Gord Evans]

This was not so much a "rampage" as a judgement -- not a venting of personal anger, but an act of holy justice.


In Christ Jesus' own words, He came into the world as a light so that believers should not remain unenlightened ... He said that He did not come to judge but to save. (Read John 12:44-50 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:44-50;&version=31;))

How do Jesus' words, as presented by John, square with a position of "judgement" or an "act of holy justice"?

In John's version of the Temple clearing, it was Jesus' disciples who recalled David's cry to God, "For zeal for Your house has consumed me, and the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me." (Psalm 69:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2069:9;&version=49;)) So many times throughout the Gospels, Jesus' shares the Word to reveal the universality of sin throughout the ages, but at the same time, his unconditional love for the repentant.

Jesus proclaimed, in Matthew's Gospel presentation (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2021:12-13;&version=31;), the prophesy spoken by Isaiah, that for those who believe and who obey, God's house "will be called a house of prayer for all nations." (read Isaiah 56 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2056:1-8;&version=31;)).

Jeremiah prophesied to Israel concerning the desecration of the Temple and the unworthy worship that continued to occur in the Temple. God, through Jeremiah, reminded the people of how He had previously responded to Temple desecration, and how He would respond again (read Jeremiah 7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%207;&version=31;)).

Sin is sin. Jesus, thorughout the Gospels, revealed sin to those who would see, to those with ears to hear, even as He revealed Himself as the Way to the Father. Jesus visually and physically and demonstrably responded to sin as He cleared the Temple. In the same breath, He also proclaimed His solution to the sin of the world, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." (John 2:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:12-25;&version=31;))

Clearing the Temple was yet another demonstration of God's love. It revealed God's abhorrence of sin. But it also revealed His love for us through the atoning death and resurrection (in three days) of His Son.

[Randy Wise]

These are almost perennial questions, as they should be. We need constantly to evaluate our approaches to these issues. For those of us who came of age in the 60's, they have a particular significance. Public demonstration was part of the social fabric in those days, and there was little middle ground on many issues.

I think that it cannot be denied that public demonstration has been a powerful force in our world, and that is certainly true in U. S. history and social issues. Abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, temperance, civil rights, and war have been causes greatly influenced by what has happened in the streets. On many of those issues there has been a significant participation by Christians and churches.

I have two basic questions to ask in approaching how we should respond to "Christian Action." The first is simply, "Is it Christian?" In a nearby town, this year there was a controversy over a decision not to allow a pastor to read the Christmas story from the Bible at a Christmas celebration. Frankly, some of the protest was anything but Christian. It should be obvious that there is much that is abhorrently un-Christian about many anti-abortion and anti-gay demonstrations that we've witnessed. We saw the same thing in the sixties -- violent anti-war protests. I think that this is a large part of our reluctance to engage in these public "Christian action" methods.

Jesus spent a lot less time protesting and more time proclaiming! We would de well to emulate Him at this point. This is not meant as an excuse for not standing up against immorality and injustice and advocating vigorously for righteousness in our respective societies, but it does mean that there is a primacy to positive action.

We also misunderstand what the "spiritual weapons" are that Paul admonishes us to use in this warfare. They are forgiveness, mercy, kindness, and all expressions of love. Powerful stuff!

My second question is, "Is it effective?" As already indicated, on many issues public demonstrations have been powerful forces for change. Unfortunately, this doesn't have seemed to be the case in our contemporary "culture wars" in the U.S. Especially on the issues of abortion and homosexuality, what passes for "activism," Christian or otherwise, has been particularly ineffective.

Wilson suggests that maybe we'd do better to support crisis pregnancy centers, "exodus" counseling, etc. and I would heartily agree. I don't think it is ever an either/or proposition. We need to find positive, Christian ways to advocate for social change, to stand for justice and righteousness without ever abandoning the servant mandate to address these issues at the human level with compassion and proclamation.

Isn't it written "beware of the Son because His anger can flare in a moment" Jesus was angry because of the location of the religious money making sceme was "Most Holy". (The temple) as Jesus quoted the scriptures "my house will be a house of prayer" and the anger was prompted by the Lords zeal for His Fathers house. There was nothing stated about anyone being hurt just driven out of the temple area.
Randy

[Laurie Florence]

In Christ Jesus' own words, He came into the world as a light so that believers should not remain unenlightened ... He said that He did not come to judge but to save. (Read John 12:44-50 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:44-50;&version=31;)) ........

Sin is sin. Jesus, thorughout the Gospels, revealed sin to those who would see, to those with ears to hear, even as He revealed Himself as the Way to the Father. Jesus visually and physically and demonstrably responded to sin as He cleared the Temple. In the same breath, He also proclaimed His solution to the sin of the world, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." (John 2:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:12-25;&version=31;))

Clearing the Temple was yet another demonstration of God's love. It revealed God's abhorrence of sin. But it also revealed His love for us through the atoning death and resurrection (in three days) of His Son.


Gord, this post was a beautifully stated commentary on the temple cleaning passage. Thank you!
The message I have always taken from this passage (and others like it) is that God hates sin, but loves people. With this in mind, I try hard to reflect this in my interactions with others. Perhaps this message can be helpful to us with regard to our approach to christian action. I believe that the truth without love is ineffective (and probably mean and cold too). Love without truth is also ineffective. How could we ever become the people God calls us to be without the truth - even when the truth is uncomfortable to us. But, the combination of the truth with God's love is an awesome and powerful thing. I praise God for it.
Blessings,

Laurie

[Billy Cox]

Acts 5:34-39
34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

With regard to Christian action, we have sometimes advanced God's will on earth, while at other times we have found ourselves fighting against God.

[Joyce Miller]

I think that it cannot be denied that public demonstration has been a powerful force in our world, and that is certainly true in U. S. history and social issues. Abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, temperance, civil rights, and war have been causes greatly influenced by what has happened in the streets. On many of those issues there has been a significant participation by Christians and churches.

. . . We need to find positive, Christian ways to advocate for social change, to stand for justice and righteousness without ever abandoning the servant mandate to address these issues at the human level with compassion and proclamation.

Larry,
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I, too, was thinking about the anti-slavery movement in the US while reflecting on Christian action. I wonder how much better the African Americans would be now had there not been the repercussions of the Civil War. However, in my heart, I honor those Union soldiers who joined the battle because they were Christians, were heart-sick over slavery, and wanted to participate in its removal. Today, there are many in our military who feel that there cause is just in bringing freedom to others. General MacArthur said that no one hates war more than a soldier, but even so, there are Christians who take action in that way in order to defeat evil. While Jesus preached to turn the other cheek when struck, I believe that he didn't mean that we are to turn our heads when others are being struck. Sometimes Christian action requires the ultimate price.

And while we're on this topic of Christian action, I have been trying to find out if our international church denomination is doing anything DIRECTLY about the two major situations in Africa: the genocide in the Darfur area and the AIDS crisis. Does anyone know?

[Wilson L. Deaton]

And while we're on this topic of Christian action, I have been trying to find out if our international church denomination is doing anything DIRECTLY about the two major situations in Africa: the genocide in the Darfur area and the AIDS crisis. Does anyone know?

Nazarene Compassionate Ministries conducts an AIDS Ministry:

http://www.ncm.org/AIDS/default.aspx

Wilson

[Dave McClung]

...
And while we're on this topic of Christian action, I have been trying to find out if our international church denomination is doing anything DIRECTLY about the two major situations in Africa: the genocide in the Darfur area and the AIDS crisis. Does anyone know?

Joyce, I have to give a less than direct answer to your question about Darfur. If you look at the list of countries where the Church of the Nazarene has presence, you will see some countries listed as "creative access." What that means is that we have missionaries working in some places where a public disclosure of their presence might cause our missionaries to be in danger. At the current time, it isn't possible for the Church of the Nazarene to legally have missionaries in Sudan and several of its neighbor countries. Just because we don't announce the presence of missionaries in those areas doesn't mean they aren't there.

When I was in Kenya, I heard stores of Nazarene clergy from Kenya who make trips into Somolia and Sudan to preach the gospel. They are not "official" representatives of the Church of the Nazarene, but still do a lot of good work. They risk their lives to share the gospel.

In places where no white person can safely go, the Jesus Film is reaching the lost. Teams of Africans are taking the film to towns and villages all across that region.

So, to answer your question, the Church of the Nazarene is very aware of the suffering in Darfur and Nazarenes are helping where they can.