Extreme Servanthood

In 1854, Wesleyan leader Robert Young declared that, “Christianity is essentially aggressive.” He did not mean aggressive as a shocking number of modern white evangelicals mean it--- disrespectful speech or physical posturing; he meant aggressive as in aggressively busy, aggressively evangelizing, aggressively intrusive into the systems of this world, and aggressively requiring Christ-like action and character from its adherence. He was reflecting the evangelicalism of his day which was characterized by vast renewal movements and extensive social action. It was the evangelicalism of D.L Moody who lead massive revivals around the English speaking world; founded Sunday schools, homeless shelters, and orphanages; hosted theological conferences, formed the Moody Bible Institute, which sent missionaries around the world; and shared his pulpit with reformers, women, and preachers from all walks of life. It was a compassionate, activistic, global-focused, fearless evangelicalism. Like all

          In his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy begged the American people to “think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” He was harkening back to a different time in American history when rights were balanced by duty. To talk about duty now is likely to get someone accused of Marxism or socialism, but it used to be a beloved American virtue. George Washington mentioned it in his farewell address; Abraham Lincoln brought it up multiple times; and General Patton used it to inspire the American troops on D-Day. Historically, freedom has been a guard on duty, so it does not become socialism and duty a limit on freedom, so it does not become anarchy. Yet today, much of the mask conversation has focused on freedom without any mention of the concept of duty.           A more simplistic understanding of this duet is the balance between life and liberty. In a strictly libertarian society, everyone has the liberty to do what they want un

          There is a dangerous assumption among white evangelicals that God’s compassion through us is finite. If we care about one thing, we have used up that compassion and cannot care about other things. The most extreme form of this is the “single issue” voter. For these people, if they care about one issue and once every four years vote for a candidate who claims they care about it too, they have done their civic and Christian duty. Among white evangelicals, most “single issue voters” vote for whoever claims to be prolife, but throughout the diverse spectrum of Christian voters in America, people are also single issue voters on racial justice, immigration reform, gun control (both sides), immigration restriction in the name of safety, and religious freedom issues. There are many ways to be a single-issue voter, but they generally are poorly informed about any issue other than their own and may even be hostile to those who believe other issues may also be important. A good sing

         The most disenfranchised group in America may be the “working poor.” These are people who work hard, full-time jobs and are not trying to find handouts. Yet, they often fall through the crackles when they hit a crisis. For example, this past year, I have a sweet 62-year-old cancer patient who had worked her entire life in healthcare. She was too young for retirement or Medicare to kick in, so when she started on hospice, she was still working parttime to maintain her insurance. When she became too sick to work and had exhausted her limited FMLA, she was fired. She was the sole provider for herself and now had just a little too much in assets (she owned a modest home in a bad neighborhood) to qualify for Medicaid. Additionally, she was still trying to pay off an ambulance trip when she first became ill because her insurance at the time did not cover it. I am proud to say that my hospital’s foundation (after four months and dozens of pages of paperwork from our social worker)

     Many evangelical churches practice “giving Sunday”--- the one Sunday a year it is acceptable for the preacher to talk about money and to suggest--- sometimes aggressively, sometimes timidly--- that the church members consider helping pay for the church ministries and services that they benefit from. It is a reliable fact that the pastor will at some point bring up Malachi 3:8-10, where God accuses the people of Judah of robbing him by failing to pay their tithes and offerings. Every prosperity gospel-preacher’s favorite verse follows this where God promises that he will pour out blessings if they resume tithes and offerings.           Most of these sermons miss two vital aspects of this passage. First, failing to bring tithes is one of three offences that God is putting his people on trial for. Before he talks about money, he talks about the poor--- about those who “defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners of justic

         Although the Bible is bookended by the creation and rebirth of creation and God’s concern for his world is woven throughout its story, a shocking number of modern Christians see environmentalism to be extra-biblical (something the Bible simply does not seem to care about either way) or anti-biblical (contradicting some biblical text). While many of this reactions come from a blending of environment concern with other liberal concerns rather than dealing with it on its own, there are two other assumptions that must be addressed.           The first assumption is related to the position that this world will be destroyed by fire; therefore, humans need not worry about conserving it. This is a biblical image found in 2 Peter 3 where Peter talks about how the “heavens will pass away with a roar and the earth with be destroyed with fire” (2 Pet. 3:10). However, fire is not simply to destroy. In this passage it is a part of rebirth process that will produce the new heaven and ear

             Why did God make humans? That is undoubtedly a complicated question, but God gives us at least a partial answer before we were even made. In Genesis, God says, “Let us make humans in our image.” Why? So they can “steward the fish of the sea the birds of the air and the cattle and all the earth” (Genesis 1:26). Before we discovered what it was to love each other or to love God, before sin entered and salvation followed, before the Word of God was written, humans were put here to take care of the earth. That is a monumental statement and a monumental responsibility. If we stand before God tomorrow and he asks how we did at the first purpose he gave us-- caring for his world--- how would we answer?           American discourse has a bad case of guilt by association. If many of the voices advocating for environmental responsibility are also advocating for things that are not biblical defensible, then it all must be wrong! That is, of course, a logical fallacy. Even a broken

           In 2 Samuel 6, King David has a wonderful, god-honoring goal: he wants to bring the Ark of the Covenant (the symbol of God living among his people) to the new capital of Jerusalem. He gathers the Israelite people and throws a parade, loading the Ark on a cart and surrounding it with musicians and dancers. At a rocky point, one of the young men walking beside the cart reaches out to stop the Ark from falling off and is struck dead. God had left clear instructions how the Ark should be transported--- on the shoulders of six priests who had purified themselves. It was never supposed to be transported by a cart or touched by a common man. The consequences of David doing the right thing in the wrong way was a man’s death. In Scripture, God expects his people to do the right thing with the right methods. We are to speak the truth (the right thing) in love (the right way) (Eph 4:15). A large part of how Christians view the current debates over the Supreme Court hinges on how much

           If a fetus is a person and, therefore, its life should have the same value and protection as any other life, what should Christians do with this information? They should protect these lives, of course. This means seeking to reduce and then eliminate all non-life saving abortions. Notice, this is a different statement than “make abortion illegal.” Many European countries have far fewer abortion limitations than the United States, yet far fewer abortions per capital. France and Norway both have about half as many abortions per child-bearing woman and Spain has about a third. On the flip side, in the United States in the 50’s and 60’s (before Roe v. Wade), illegal abortions in the United States were as high as million a year--- almost double the current abortion rate. Abortions are legal in Mexico, but social and religious pressure against it are so strong that it has the lowest abortion rate in the world even when compared to countries in which abortion is illegal. Eliminati