inside this issue: tbn fraud reported page 3 social gospel.pdf · ‘‘the whole church taking the...

VOL. 32, NO. 3 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2012 EDITOR: KEITH A. MORSE

by Gary E. Gilley

One of the issues God’s people havealways faced is their role in society. Inthe Old Testament, theLord chose Abraham tobe the father of a called-out race of people. Yearslater, the Lord establishedthe nation of Israel underthe Mosaic Covenant. De-tailed laws and regula-tions were given to Israelat the time. These in-cluded governance, deal-ing with poverty, helpingwidows and orphans,and correcting injustices.These matters were ad-dressed almost exclu-sively within the contextof the nation of Israel,with minor concern forsurrounding nations.

The Old Covenant wasin force until the dawningof the Church Age in Acts 2. TheChurch, God’s chosen people in thisage, comprises regenerate people ofall nationalities. It is not a nation inan official sense and has not beengiven laws by which a governmentalstructure could function.

Still, most recognize that Christianslive as citizens not only of heaven but

also of earth and thus have responsi-bilities here and now. The nature of

those responsibilities andtheir administration havebeen debated for almost2000 years. Over time, theconsensus has swungfrom disinterest in societalproblems to making theirsolution the Church’s pri-mary objective.

Most recently, a focuson the social agenda hasgained popularity in mostevangelical circles and israpidly attaining equalstatus with the proclama-tion of the Gospel mes-sage. A two-pronged gos-pel has arisen, composedof the Great Commissionand the so-called CulturalMandate.

(continues on page 11)

Inside this Issue:TBN Fraud Reported................................................... Page 3The Imperative of Discernment .................................... Page 4The Social Gospel of the Past .....................................2

July-September 2012 The Quarterly Journal · 11

It is essential that we read andconsider Acts 20:26-32. In those versesPaul warns that false teachers wouldinfiltrate the Ephesian church — bothfrom outside and inside. The hereticalteachers would mislead and speakperverse things, divide the flock, andcarry off misguided followers. Byextension, leaders in the Church arecommanded to really be on guard. Allof this demands discernment. It is nota ‘‘do it if you feel like it’’ exercise.

Ponder the imperative of discern-ment — its facts — its failures — andyour responsibility to fully embrace it.

Endnotes:1. Roy Laurin, Philippians - Where LifeAdvances. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publish-ing, 1954, pg. 31.2. K. Neill Foster, The Discerning Christian.Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publications,Inc., 1981, pg. 11.3. Richard J. Mouw, ‘‘Mormonism: Not acult, not a problem,’’ Op-Ed in Los AngelesTimes, Nov. 20, 2011. Document accessedat: www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mouw-mormons-20111120,0,699207.story.4. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book ofActs. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerd-mans Publishing, 1955, pg. 347.

5. John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publish-ing House, 1992, pg. 30.6. Ibid., pg. 31.7. Ibid., pg. 30 and William M. Alnor,Heaven Can’t Wait. Grand Rapids, Mich.:Baker Book House, 1996, pg. 47. Alnorprovides a good critique of Eby’s book,Caught Up into Paradise, on pages 46-50.8. Charismatic Chaos, op. cit., pp. 31-32.9. Kenneth E. Hagin, ‘‘The Glory of God,’’The Word of Faith magazine, October 1986,pg. 17. This two-part article was later (in1987) printed in booklet form.10. For additional information on theclaims of Hagin, see J. Greg Sheryl withM. Kurt Goedelman, ‘‘The Visions andVoices of Kenneth E. Hagin,’’ The Quar-terly Journal, January-March 2005, pp. 1,18-24.11. Sergio Luzzatto, Padre Pio. New York:Metropolitan Books, 2010, pg. 30.12. P.D. Hocken in Stanley M. Burgess,Editor, The New International Dictionary ofPentecostal and Charismatic Movements.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2002,pg. 517.13. ‘‘The Gospel Really Is Good News,’’Grace Communion International Web site.Document accessed at: www.gci.org/gospel/reallyis.14. ‘‘Are There Three Resurrections?,’’Grace Communion International Web site,italic in original. Document accessed at:www.gci.org/bible/rev/3resurrec.

15. Ibid., italics in original.16. Peter Ditzel, ‘‘Being Saved After Deathis Still Alive in the Worldwide Church ofGod,’’ The Quarterly Journal, October-December 2001, pp. 1, 11-20.17. Ibid., pg. 1.18. ‘‘The Battle Over Hell,’’ Grace Com-munion International Web site. Documentaccessed at: www.gci.org/prophecy/hell.19. Hank Hanegraaff, Resurrection - TheCapstone in the Arch of Christianity. Nash-ville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000, pp.66, 70, 72, 116, 117, 121, 122, 139, 140, 141,142, 238.20. In his endnote, Hanegraaff concedes:‘‘While I have significant theological dif-ferences with both [C.S.] Lewis and Kreeft,I greatly admire their writing prowess,mental acumen, and philosophical sophis-tication’’ (ibid., pg. 251).21. Peter Kreeft, Ecumenical Jihad. SanFrancisco: Ignatius Press, 1996, pg. 162,italics in original.22. Ibid., pg. 85.23. Ibid., pg. 86.24. Ibid., the description of Kreeft’s out-of-body experience is found in chapter six,pp. 85-111.25. Commentary on the Book of Acts, op. cit.,pg. 418.26. Robert P. Lightner, ‘‘Contending forthe Faith Without Being Contentious,’’2010 Saint Louis Conference on BiblicalDiscernment, CD-1007.

THE SOCIAL GOSPEL(continued from page 1)

An article by John R.W. Stott, anearly architect of the two-prongedapproach, was posthumouslypublished in Christianity Today. Itstated:

‘‘We are convinced of the powerof the gospel in evangelism —that it brings salvation and re-demption to those who respondand believe in Jesus. But it isn’tonly the gospel that is powerful.All God’s truth is powerful.’’1

Such a statement, on its face, is notdebatable. But Christians should takeheed of where it leads. Stott hasendorsed, if not created, the visionstatement of The Lausanne Movement:‘‘The whole church taking the wholegospel to the whole world.’’ Whilethis makes for a catchy slogan, almostevery word has to be examined.

Given the high emphasis on ecu-menical unity at all three of theLausanne conferences on world evan-gelization, including the latest in CapeTown in 2010, it appears that the‘‘whole church’’ includes virtually allbranches and traditions within Chris-tendom, including Roman Catholic,Eastern Orthodox and mainline de-nominations. The ‘‘whole gospel’’ willbe defined by what is meant by the‘‘whole world.’’ According to TheLausanne Movement, ‘‘the wholeworld’’ is framed around six majorthemes, including ‘‘The World of Vio-lence’’ and ‘‘The World of Povertyand Injustice.’’2 The ‘‘whole gospel’’by default includes not only the goodnews that Jesus Christ has died toprovide salvation, but also addressesthe social injustices found in ourworld today. As further evidence ofthis, we turn to positional papersflowing from Cape Town 2010. Onesuch document from the conferencereads:

‘‘Cape Town 2010 must callevangelicals to recognise afreshthe biblical affirmation of God’sredemptive purpose for creationitself. Integral mission means dis-cerning, proclaiming, and livingout, the biblical truth that thegospel is God’s good news,through the cross and resurrec-tion of Jesus Christ, for persons,and for society, and for creation.All three are broken and suffer-ing because of sin; all three areincluded in the redeeming loveand mission of God; all threemust be part of the comprehen-sive mission of God’s people. ...Christians who are working inenvironmental biology and cre-ation care have a valid missionalcalling which needs to be recog-nised, encouraged and resourcedby the church, for they modelhow to integrate the care ofcreation into what it means toproclaim Jesus as Lord. Caring

12 · The Quarterly Journal July-September 2012

Evangelicalism changed radicallyin the 19th century. The effects of theGreat Awakening in the 1730s-1740sin America and the Evangelical Re-vival in England were a memory.Many longed for something similarbut seemed willing to settle for theoutward emotionalism1 instead ofthe content-oriented approach oftheir fathers. Thus, when the so-called Second Great Awakening be-gan in Cane Ridge, Ky., in 1800 andspread throughout much of NewEngland and parts of the AmericanSouth, it differed greatly from theprevious century’s revival.

Jonathan Edwards believed theGreat Awakening was a true revival,but he also knew that there wereexcesses, pretenders, and ‘‘false spir-its’’ mingled in. While there wereundoubtedly true conversions andfervor for the Lord in the 19thcentury revivals, much of it wasfleshly passion. A good speaker, suchas Charles Finney, could draw hugecrowds. Churches would be packedduring ‘‘revivals,’’ but after the evan-gelists had moved on, life returned toits pre-revival state.

Many pastors decided to offer re-vival-style services. One critic of theFinney-style revivals wrote that in1858: ‘‘‘Singing, shouting, jumping,talking, praying, all at the same time... in a crowded house, filled to suffo-cation,’ according to a more soberCongregational missionary, led topeople having fits and giving in theirnames as converts but, as soon as theexcitement was over, falling away.’’2

This cycle became so common thatcertain sections of New England and

for creation is an act of fidelity tothe whole biblical gospel and themission that flows from it. ... Ourmissional calling demands morecareful and critical consumption,creative production, propheticdenunciation, advocacy for andmobilization of the victims ofworld injustice. While we standwith the Micah Challenge inholding our governments ac-countable to their commitmentsto ‘make poverty history’, wealso dedicate ourselves to ‘mak-ing greed history’ in our ownlives, churches, communities,countries and world.’’3

It becomes clear from such state-ments that Lausanne, which representsmuch of mainstream evangelicalism,is co-mingling a form of the socialgospel with the biblical Gospel. TheLausanne leadership does try to giveevangelism pre-eminence, stating:

‘‘Although reconciliation withother people is not reconciliationwith God, nor is social actionevangelism, nor is political lib-eration salvation, nevertheless weaffirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part ofour Christian duty. For both arenecessary expressions of our doc-trines of God and man, our lovefor our neighbour and our obedi-ence to Jesus Christ. The messageof salvation implies also a mes-sage of judgment upon everyform of alienation, oppressionand discrimination, and weshould not be afraid to denounceevil and injustice wherever theyexist.’’4

This statement goes to the heart ofthe issue. The question is not whetherChristians should play a responsiblerole in society, or whether we shoulddenounce evil and injustice, butwhether ‘‘evangelism and socio-politi-cal involvement are both part of ourChristian duty,’’ and if so, to whatextent?

This concern is widespread andcontagious. Some of the most popularChristian leaders and authors stressthe social agenda. Francis Chan, in hisbook Crazy Love, wants Christians tolive as simply as possible in order to

the state of New York became knownas the ‘‘Burnt-over District’’ wherethe fire of revival meetings hadswept so often through some areasthat people ultimately had grownresistant to the things of God. To thisday, these regions remain perhapsthe most spiritually hardened partsof the American landscape. It isinteresting, however, that in the mid-1800s many of the standard cults thatare prominent today emerged fromthis same area.

By the mid-1800s, some saw a needto establish criteria by which a trueEvangelical could be identified. In1846, ‘‘the Evangelical Alliance wasformed to bring together the Protes-tants all over the world who werethe heirs of the awakening of theprevious century.’’3 The EvangelicalAlliance confirmed the standard doc-trines of the faith and offered fourhallmarks of an Evangelical:

• Belief in the inspiration, author-ity, and sufficiency of Scripture.

• Acknowledgement of the central-ity of the cross, upon which Jesus’sacrifice provided the way of salva-tion for men.

• Affirmation of the need forconversion in which by repentanceand faith a sinner becomes a newcreature in Christ through the powerof the Holy Spirit.

• Activism in which the child ofGod is busy presenting the Gospeland ministering to those in need.4

Those who rejected the doctrinalorthodoxy of the World EvangelicalAlliance, as it was also called, tried

by Gary E. Gilley


give more toward the alleviation of‘‘suffering in the world and changethe reputation of His bride inAmerica.’’5 One of the reasons Chan’sbook has been received with suchenthusiasm is that he is not tellingpeople anything that our culture isnot already saying. When Bill Gatesand Warren Buffett pledged much oftheir vast fortunes toward the sameagenda, the world applauded, just asit has for Chan.

Chan is concerned about the reputa-tion of the Church in America, andnot without reason. However, the trueChurch doing the true work of God(calling people to Christ) will neverwin the world’s approval. TheChurch’s message is offensive(1 Corinthians 1:18-25) and we are farmore likely to be vilified and perse-cuted than cheered — as Jesus prom-ised (Matthew 5:11-12). We shouldfind it a source of concern, not areason for rejoicing, when the worldlikes us.

A similar voice is David Platt’s andhis book Radical. Platt offers betterbalance than Chan but still propagatesa two-pronged gospel: the Gospel ofredemption and the social gospel.While Platt is careful to elevate thetrue Gospel, the social gospel offeeding the hungry and giving to thepoor is the primary focus of the bookand accounts for its popularity.6 Hewrites, ‘‘as we meet needs on earth,we are proclaiming a gospel thattransforms lives for eternity.’’7 Theauthor does not advocate the socialagenda as opposed to true evange-lism, but he does say that caring forthe poor is evidence of salvation. Hewrites, ‘‘rich people who neglect thepoor are not the people of God.’’8

However, when we turn to the NewTestament, we find that while Chris-tians are to be loving and generous toall people, they are never told to tryto alleviate the consequences of thesin of unbelieving humanity throughsocial action. Instead, they are told tosupply the needs of brothers andsisters in Christ, something Platt ad-mits in a footnote.9 In fact, the Churchis never commissioned to rectify in-justices by dealing with the symptomsof sin, but to ‘‘radically’’ uproot sin

to infiltrate it with liberal theology.When that failed, they withdrew in1894 to form their own organization,The Open Church League, whichlater was renamed the National Fed-eration of Churches and ChristianWorkers in 1900. By 1950 the Na-tional Federation was reorganized asthe National Council of Churches.5This breaking away by the liberalfactions and the forming of their ownorganization led to the demise of theWorld Evangelical Alliance.

The liberal theologians (known as‘‘modernists’’ in the late 1800s) werebringing German rationalism intoEnglish-speaking churches, especiallyin America. Many in these churcheshad abandoned the careful study andteaching of Scripture, making thesechurches fertile ground for heresy.

Added to this was a move from theprecise thinking of the Enlighten-ment to Romanticism and emphasison feeling and experience overtheology and Scripture.6 Together allof these threads were combined dur-ing the second half of the 19thcentury to produce a radical make-over in Christianity. Doctrines helddear by Evangelicals were aban-doned. And with the denial of essen-tial biblical truth came a shift in thefocus and purpose of the Church. Ifthe incarnation was in doubt, and theScriptures suspect, and theology it-self under attack, then that left socialaction as the mission of the Church.And thus the ‘‘social gospel’’ wasborn.

Church historian David Bebbingtonwrote:

‘‘The most characteristic doc-trine of the social gospelers, thatthe kingdom of God was to berealized by social improvement,was derived primarily from theGerman liberal theologian Al-brecht Ritschl.’’7

However, it is important to realizethat the social gospel did not over-whelm the Gospel of spiritual salva-tion all at once. For some time,

‘‘There was much agreement inAmerica that the gospel was prima-rily a matter of spiritual salvation,but that under modern conditions itwas also necessary to strive for socialreform. In its origins the social gos-pel movement was in large part abroadening expression of evangeli-calism.’’8

Perhaps doctrine took a back seatto social action because of pressureby people such as George Eliot whotaught that ‘‘salvation of the indi-vidual soul was not sufficient. Soci-ety must be saved as well as Chris-tians.’’9

Nevertheless, evangelical forcesheld their ground during most of thelatter half of the century, but thefront lines began to crumble by thelast decade and the war was essen-tially lost by 1900. And with that lossnot only had the great truths ofScripture been undermined, but thepurpose of the Church had beenshifted from fulfillment of the GreatCommission with its emphasis onevangelism and discipleship to thesocial gospel and saving society fromitself. Probably no one has describedthe social gospel better than H.Richard Niebuhr who wrote, ‘‘A Godwithout wrath brought men withoutsin into a kingdom without judgmentthrough the ministrations of a Christwithout a cross.’’10

By the early 1900s, most theologicalliberals had made social concernscentral to their understanding of theGospel. Historian George Marsdenwrote:

‘‘While not necessarily denyingthe value of the traditional evan-gelical approach of starting withevangelism, social gospelspokesmen subordinated suchthemes, often suggesting thatstress on evangelism had madeAmerican evangelicalism toootherworldly ... and individual-istic ... Such themes fit well withthe emerging liberal theology ofthe day.’’11

(continues on page 21)


itself through the Gospel. KevinDeYoung and Gregory Gilbert wrote,‘‘If you are looking for a picture of theearly church giving itself to creationcare, plans for societal renewal, andstrategies to serve the community inJesus’ name, you won’t find them inActs. But if you are looking forpreaching, teaching, and the centralityof the Word, this is your book.’’10

Nevertheless, evangelical leaderTimothy Keller offers a different mes-sage. In his book The Reason for God,Keller promotes the two-pronged gos-pel. Drawing from N.T. Wright andthe ‘‘missional’’ understanding ofChristianity, Keller infuses a socialdimension into his gospel definition.Keller’s gospel is more than the goodnews that Christ has come to reconcileus to God; it is also solving theworld’s problems of injustice,poverty, and healing the troubles ofthis earth. He quotes Wright, notScripture, to support his view:

‘‘The message of the resurrectionis that this world matters! Thatthe injustices and pains of thispresent world must now be ad-dressed with the news that heal-ing, justice, and love have won ...But if Jesus Christ is truly risenfrom the dead, Christianity be-comes good news for the wholeworld ... Easter means that in aworld where injustice, violenceand degradation are endemic,God is not prepared to toleratesuch things — and that we willwork and plan, with all theenergy of God, to implementvictory of Jesus over them all.’’11

Later Keller makes clear what hemeans:

‘‘The purpose of Jesus’s comingis to put the whole world right,to renew and restore the creation,not to escape it. It is not just tobring personal forgiveness andpeace, but also justice and shalomto the world. ... The work of theSpirit of God is not only to savesouls but also to care and culti-vate the face of the earth, thematerial world.’’12

Nowhere in the New Testament issuch a commission given to the

people of God. One will, however,find a similar message in the emer-gent church, Wright’s ‘‘New Perspec-tive on Paul,’’ and those reviving theold ‘‘social gospel’’ agenda.

With this in mind, we turn toWright himself. In his What Saint PaulReally Said, he writes that, ‘‘‘Thegospel’ is supposed to be a descrip-tion of how people get saved,’’ orhow ‘‘Christ takes our sin and we hisrighteousness,’’ or something alongthat order.13 To Wright this is notwhat Paul meant by the Gospel. TheGospel instead is ‘‘the narrative proc-lamation of King Jesus;’’14 and Paul‘‘is announcing that ... Jesus is theking, not only of Israel but of all theworld.’’15 Said with greater clarity,‘‘The gospel is the announcement thatJesus is Lord — Lord of the world,Lord of the cosmos, Lord of the earth,of the ozone layer, of whales andwaterfalls, of trees and tortoises.’’16

While no thinking Christian woulddeny the lordship of Christ over allthings, when the Gospel itself be-comes the message of lordship ratherthan the message of redemption andjustification, a seismic shift in theunderstanding of Jesus’ mission isnecessary. Wright leaves no doubtwhere he is headed: ‘‘As soon as weget this right we destroy at a strokethe disastrous dichotomy that hasexisted in people’s minds between‘preaching the gospel’ on the onehand and what used to be calledloosely ‘social action’ or ‘social justice’on the other. Preaching the gospelmeans announcing Jesus as Lord ofthe world; and ... we cannot makethat announcement without seeking tobring that lordship to bear over everyaspect of the world. ... It is bringingthe whole world under the lordshipof Christ.’’17

Add to all this Rick Warren’sPEACE plan. After the success of hisbook, The Purpose Driven Life, Warrendeveloped a plan for changing theworld. PEACE is an acronym for‘‘Promote Reconciliation,’’ ‘‘EquipServant Leaders,’’ ‘‘Assist the Poor,’’‘‘Care for the Sick,’’ and ‘‘Educate theNext Generation.’’ Originally, the firstletter of the acronym PEACE stoodfor ‘‘Plant Churches’’ and, as such,

would be the only thing distinguish-ing the plan from any other well-meaning secular program. The initialidea was to motivate and coordinatechurches to solve the four socialproblems identified in the rest of theacronym (E-A-C-E). Warren’s logic isthat the Church is already presentthroughout the world and wherechurches were lacking, more could beplanted to meet these social needs.But as Warren’s focus changed and hewanted to enlarge his influence, hechanged what the ‘‘P’’ stood for andhas removed any Christian distinc-tiveness from the plan.

What is unfolding before us is whatemergent church leader BrianMcLaren calls ‘‘missional.’’ Missional,McLaren tells us, is ‘‘a generous thirdway’’ between the conservative per-sonal Savior gospel and the liberalversion of it.18 McLaren explains hismissional calling as ‘‘blessed in thislife to be a blessing to everyone onearth. ... my mission isn’t to figure outwho is already blessed, or not blessed,or unblessable. My calling is to beblessed so I can bless everyone.’’19 Hecontinues, ‘‘From this understandingwe place less emphasis on whoselineage, rites, doctrines, structures,and terminology are right and moreemphasis on whose actions, service,outreach, kindness, and effectivenessare good. ... [In order] to help ourworld get back on the road to beingtruly and wholly good again, the wayGod created it to be.’’20

Rob Bell adds:

‘‘For Jesus, the question wasn’t,how do I get into heaven? buthow do I bring heaven here? ...The goal isn’t escaping thisworld but making this world thekind of place God can come to.And God is remaking us into thekind of people who can do thiskind of work.’’21

McLaren’s and Bell’s rationale is anecho of the founders of liberalism.

IN SEARCH OF THE MESSAGE

The original social gospel move-ment began as an appendage to theemerging liberalism that started inGermany and ultimately swept


through the Western Church. As theliberal movement matured, it left be-hind most doctrinal distinctives heldby earlier Protestants and came to bedefined by social action. Today, a newwave of social involvement, as amajor tenet of Church ministry, isflowing through evangelical churches,changing the very nature of Churchdynamics and outreach. The issue isnot whether Christians should beinvolved with their culture, butwhether trying to solve problems ofthe culture is the mission of theChurch.

Liberalism would almost exclu-sively emphasize social causes. Forexample, the National Council ofChurches states, ‘‘the central moralimperative of our time is the care forEarth as God’s creation.’’22 Postmod-ern liberalism, as found in the emer-gent movement, would agree.McLaren believes that ‘‘Jesus and hismessage have everything to do withpoverty, slavery, and a ‘socialagenda’’’23 — it is not about justifica-tion from sin.

SUPPORT FOR ATWO-PRONGEDMANDATEThose who back the concept that the

Church has been called to both dis-ciple men and women for Christ andimprove social conditions cite threeprimary arguments:

1. Old Testament Israel. When try-ing to provide a biblical foundationfor social involvement of the Church,supporters most often turn to OldTestament teaching directed at Israel.There are numerous commands andadmonitions that have social implica-tions. For example, we find God’sconcern for:

• Justice. ‘‘Woe to those who decreeunrighteous decrees, who write mis-fortune, which they have prescribedto rob the needy of justice’’ (Isaiah10:1-2a, emphasis added). The Lordmade provision for fair and impartialcourts of law, not just for the poor butfor all: ‘‘You shall do no injustice injudgment. You shall not be partial tothe poor, nor honor the person of themighty. In righteousness you shalljudge your neighbor’’ (Leviticus19:15).

• The poor. ‘‘He who mocks the poorreproaches his Maker; he who is gladat calamity will not go unpunished’’(Proverbs 17:5, emphasis added).

The Lord provided several means tohelp the poor in Israel. One methodwas to provide the Jewish peoplewith a ‘‘kinsman-redeemer,’’ a closerelative designated to alleviate therelative’s troubles, including poverty.The book of Ruth supplies the bestillustration of how this systemworked, but in Leviticus 25:25 weread, ‘‘If one of your brethren be-comes poor, and has sold some of hispossession, and if his redeeming rela-tive comes to redeem it, then he mayredeem what his brother sold.’’ InDeuteronomy 15:11 the Lord tellsIsrael, ‘‘For the poor will never ceasefrom the land; therefore I commandyou, saying, ‘You shall open yourhand wide to your brother, to yourpoor and your needy, in your land.’’’

• Widows and orphans. Again inIsaiah 10:1-2 the Lord tells His people,‘‘Woe to those who decree unright-eous decrees, who write misfortune,which they have prescribed to rob theneedy of justice, and to take what isright from the poor of My people, thatwidows may be their prey, and that theymay rob the fatherless’’ (emphasisadded). There is a special place in theheart of God for orphans and widows.

• The hungry. One of the character-istics the Lord gives of the fool is ‘‘tokeep the hungry unsatisfied, and hewill cause the drink of the thirsty tofail’’ (Isaiah 32:6). Proverbs calls forthe Jews to feed even their enemies:‘‘If your enemy is hungry, give himbread to eat; And if he is thirsty, givehim water to drink’’ (25:21). And theLord gives this promise, ‘‘If youextend your soul to the hungry andsatisfy the afflicted soul, then yourlight shall dawn in the darkness, andyour darkness shall be as the noon-day’’ (Isaiah 58:10). Regarding thehungry, the Lord made unique provi-sions demanding the farmers to leavea bit of their harvest in the fields forthe poor to glean: ‘‘When you reapthe harvest of your land, you shall notwholly reap the corners of your fieldwhen you reap, nor shall you gatherany gleaning from your harvest. You

shall leave them for the poor and forthe stranger: I am the LORD yourGod’’ (Leviticus 23:22).

These concerns for the needy, whichexpress the heart of God, must betaken seriously, and many are con-templating such instructions anew.For example, Chan sees Jesus’ wordsat the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 25as a continuation or application of theOld Testament teachings. Chan be-lieves the actions we take toward thepoor have been set by our Lord as theparadigm to determine the validity ofour faith. He bases his understandingon verses 34-40 which read: ‘‘Then theKing will say to those on His righthand, ‘Come, you blessed of MyFather, inherit the kingdom preparedfor you from the foundation of theworld; for I was hungry and you gaveMe food; I was thirsty and you gaveMe drink; I was a stranger and youtook Me in; I was naked and youclothed Me; I was sick and you visitedMe; I was in prison and you came toMe.’ Then the righteous will answerHim, saying, ‘Lord, when did we seeYou hungry and feed You, or thirstyand give You drink? When did we seeYou a stranger and take You in, ornaked and clothe You? Or when didwe see You sick, or in prison, andcome to You?’ And the King willanswer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, Isay to you, inasmuch as you did it toone of the least of these My brethren,you did it to Me.’’’

Chan writes, ‘‘Jesus is saying thatwe show tangible love for God inhow we care for the poor and thosewho are suffering. He expects us totreat the poor and the desperate as ifthey were Christ Himself.’’24 By wayof application Chan continues, ‘‘Muchof their [the poor] daily hardship andsuffering could be relieved with ac-cess to food, clean water, clothing,adequate shelter, or basic medicalattention. I believe that God wantsHis people, His church, to meet theseneeds.’’25

2. Jesus’ Salt and Light Metaphors.In Matthew 5:13-16, Jesus tells Hisdisciples that they are the salt andlight of the world. Stott representshow many people interpret theseverses when he writes:


‘‘[Jesus] emphasizes the influ-ences Christians ought to haveon the non-Christian environ-ment. The distinction betweenthe two is clear. The world, hesays, is like rotting meat. But youare to be the world’s salt. Theworld is like a dark night, butyou are to be the world’s light. ...Then he goes on from the distinc-tion to the influence. Like salt inputrefying meat, Christians areto hinder social decay. Like lightin the prevailing darkness, Chris-tians are to illumine society andshow it a better way.’’26

Chan writes:

‘‘Non-churchgoers tend to seeChristians as takers rather thangivers. When Christians sacrificeand give wildly to the poor, thatis truly a light that glimmers. TheBible teaches that the church is tobe that light, that sign of hope, inan increasingly dark and hope-less world. Matthew 5:16 says,‘Let your light shine before men,that they may see your gooddeeds and praise your Father inheaven.’’’27

The means by which believers arefulfilling Jesus’ teaching to be salt andlight in the world is increasingly seenby Evangelicals as being through so-cial and political involvement. As wemobilize the Church to meet theneeds of the hungry, sick and poor,and as we protect the environmentand become active in political reform,we are seen by many as living out oursalt and light obligations.

3. The Cultural Mandate. RecentlyEvangelicals have been turning towhat they call the ‘‘Cultural Man-date’’ to provide a biblical base forsocial action. The idea is that the Lordhas actually given the Church twointerrelated callings: The Great Com-mission (Matthew 28:19-20) in whichbelievers are to go into the wholeworld and make disciples for Christ,and the Cultural Mandate in whichthe Church is authorized to be di-rectly involved in physical and socialissues related to the planet. No trueEvangelical questions the Great Com-mission, but the Cultural Mandate is

not so clear. The biblical teaching forthe Cultural Mandate is drawn fromGenesis 1:26, 28:

‘‘Then God said, ‘Let Us makeman in Our image, according toOur likeness; let them have do-minion over the fish of the sea,over the birds of the air, andover the cattle, over all the earthand over every creeping thingthat creeps on the earth.’ ... ThenGod blessed them, and God saidto them, ‘Be fruitful and multi-ply; fill the earth and subdue it;have dominion over the fish ofthe sea, over the birds of the air,and over every living thing thatmoves on the earth.’’’

From this pre-Fall text has come thebelief that the Church retains themandate given to Adam in the Gar-den to subdue and rule over theearth. Michael Goheen and Craig Bar-tholomew, authors of Living at theCrossroads, write:

‘‘If redemption is, as the Bibleteaches, the restoration of thewhole of creation, then our mis-sion is to embody this goodnews: every part of creationallife, including the public life ofour culture, is being restored. Thegood news will be evident in ourcare for the environment, in ourapproach to international rela-tions, economic justice, business,media, scholarship, family, jour-nalism, industry, and law. But ifredemption were merely aboutan otherworldly salvation (as, forexample, Moody believed), thenour mission would be reduced tothe sort of evangelism that triesto get people into heaven.’’28

Nancy Pearcey writes in her bookTotal Truth, ‘‘Christians are to redeementire cultures, not just individuals.’’29

Pearcey speaks often of the CulturalMandate:

‘‘Our calling is not just to ‘get toheaven’ but also to cultivate theearth, not just to ‘save souls’ butalso to serve God through ourwork. For God Himself is en-gaged not only in the work ofsalvation (special grace) but also

in the work of preserving anddeveloping His creation (com-mon grace). When we obey theCultural Mandate, we participatein the work of God Himself, asagents of His common grace.This is the rich content thatshould come to mind when wehear the word Redemption. Theterm does not refer only to aone-time conversion event. Itmeans entering upon a lifelongquest to devote our skills andtalents to building things that arebeautiful and useful, while fight-ing the forces of evil and sin thato p p r e s s a n d d i s t o r t t h ecreation.’’30

Pearcey and company are not con-tent with influencing culture or tryingto mitigate injustices. They want tocreate culture. In one section Pearceymentions the social efforts of someChristians who minister to ‘‘the poor,the homeless, the addicted’’ but la-ments that ‘‘none of them attempt totransform social or cultural systems,but merely [minister] to alleviatesome of the harm caused by theexisting system.’’31

It becomes apparent that manyleading Evangelicals see the CulturalMandate as fully in force as it waswhen first given to Adam and Eve.Christians then have a charge tochange culture, transform culture, cre-ate culture, and subdue creation. Thisis seen as a duty on par with makingdisciples, and thus the Great Commis-sion and the Cultural Mandate areequal parts of fulfilling the Church’smission on earth.

BIBLICAL EXAMINATIONOF THE TWO-PRONGED

MANDATE

In critiquing the three argumentsfor this mandate we can first ask,‘‘How should God’s commands toIsrael be viewed for this age?’’ Andwe could break that question downinto two questions: ‘‘Are Jewish civillaws applicable to the New TestamentChurch, and if so, how would theyfunction in the Church age?’’

The authors of the New Testamentexpress the same concerns as we find


in the Old Testament. James 1:27 tellsus that, ‘‘Pure and undefiled religionbefore God and the Father is this: tovisit orphans and widows in theirtrouble, and to keep oneself unspottedfrom the world.’’ The early Churchmade provisions to feed orphans andwidows in Acts 6:1-6 and later, as theChurch became more established,widows without other means of sup-port or resources were placed on a listto be given special care (1 Timothy5:11-16).

One of the primary reasons forPaul’s third missionary journey wasto collect from the western churches arelief offering to help the poor believ-ers in Jerusalem, ‘‘For it pleased thosefrom Macedonia and Achaia to makea certain contribution for the pooramong the saints who are in Jerusa-lem’’ (Romans 15:26).

And James calls for justice for thepoor: ‘‘My brethren, do not hold thefaith of our Lord Jesus Christ, theLord of glory, with partiality’’ (James2:1ff). Without question, the socialconcerns of God in the Old Testamentremain the same in the Church age.

However, it is often overlooked thatGod’s commands concerning socialissues in the Old Testament weregiven almost exclusively to Israel, anddealt almost entirely with the needs ofthose living within the boundaries ofgeographical Israel and under directauthority of the Mosaic Law. CharlesRyrie notes that the Old Testament‘‘does not command the establishmentof justice in the world, nor the care ofall the poor and oppressed in theworld. It is more ‘isolationist’ than theNew Testament. But it does showGod’s love for justice and holiness inpersonal living.’’32

Drawing strictly from the Old Testa-ment Scriptures yields a picture of aloving, concerned, caring God whonevertheless focused attention, withalmost no exceptions, on the poor andneedy living in Israel under the theo-cratic kingdom and the Mosaic Law.In the Old Testament no provisionwas made for the destitute livingthroughout the world. No social out-reach to surrounding nations can befound. Therefore, to press into service

the social program found in the OldTestament as a pattern for today’sglobal outreach to the needy is to gobeyond what the Old Testamentteaches. As Israel cared for the needsof her own poor, it was every poorperson who was helped. KevinDeYoung and Gregory Gilbertencourage us to ‘‘remember that the‘poor’ in Scripture are usually thepious poor. They are the righteouspoor ... the poor whom God favorsare not the slothful poor (Prov. 6:6-11;2 Thess. 3:6-12) or the disobedientpoor (Prov. 30:9), but the humble poorwho wait on God (Matt. 5:3; 6:33).’’33

THE MEANING OF JESUS’SALT AND LIGHTMETAPHORS

Jesus’ identification of His disciplesas salt and light in the world isstraightforward and has been thesource of much contemplationthroughout the years concerning whatthe followers of the Lord are to belike. Interpreting what Jesus said inMatthew 5:13-16 in general is notdifficult. Most would agree with NewTestament scholar William Hendrik-sen who writes:

‘‘Salt, then, has especially a nega-tive function. It combats deterio-ration. Similarly Christians, byshowing themselves to be Chris-tians indeed, are constantly com-bating moral and spiritual decay.... Light, on the other hand, has apositive function and shinesopenly, publicly.’’34

The specific application is wherethings get sticky. As noted above,many are interpreting this text tomean that believers are to engageculture through political involvementand social action. Most commentators,who are addressing the text with noagenda to push, do not agree. Hen-driksen writes:

‘‘Now since it is the business ofthe church to shine for Jesus, itshould not permit itself to bethrown off its course. It is not thetask of the church to specialize inand deliver all kinds of pro-nouncements concerning eco-nomic, social, and political prob-

lems. ... But the primary duty ofthe church remains the spreadingforth of the message of salvation,that the lost may be found (Luke15:4; I Cor. 9:16, 22; 10:33), thosefound may be strengthened inthe faith (Eph. 4:15; I Thess.3:11-13; I Peter 2:2; II Peter 3:18),and God may be glorified (John17:4; I Cor. 10:31).’’35

Respected preacher Martyn Lloyd-Jones states:

‘‘The great hope for society todayis an increasing number of indi-vidual Christians. Let theChurch of God concentrate onthat and not waste her time andenergy on matters outside herprovince.’’36

A.W. Pink agrees:

‘‘Spiritually the world is in dark-ness (II Peter i, 19) and sits in theshadow of death (Matt. iv, 16) ...By their [the believers’] preach-ing ignorance is to be exposed,that their hearers may be ‘turnedfrom darkness to light’ (Actsxxvi, 18).’’37

Commentator R.T. France adds:

‘‘It is only as this distinctivelifestyle is visible to others that itcan have its desired effect. Butthat effect is also now spelled outnot as the improvement and en-lightenment of society as such,but rather as the glorifying ofGod by those outside the disciplecommunity. The subject of thisdiscourse, and the aim of thediscipleship which it promotes, isnot so much the betterment oflife on earth as the implementa-tion of the reign of God. The goalof disciples’ witness is not thatothers emulate their way of life,or applaud their probity, but thatthey recognize the source of theirdistinctive lifestyle in ‘your Fa-ther in heaven.’’’38

In the salt and light metaphors Jesusis not calling on His disciples tochange society through good deedsbut to live in such a way as to glorifyGod (Matthew 5:16). Such a lifestylewill have a beneficial effect on societyin many cases, but the goal is to


magnify Jesus and draw people toHim.

To help us understand this better, itwould be good to observe what Jesusdid while on earth. He often healedthe sick, fed crowds, and ministeredto the poor and despised of society.Jesus had compassion on the hurtingand rejected, and spent time withsinners. But it should also be ob-served that Jesus spent much timewith wealthy people, such as Mary,Martha, and Lazarus. He ate in thehomes of well-to-do tax collectorssuch as Zacchaeus and powerfulPharisees. He spent time with sinnersand with religious leaders such asNicodemus. He ministered to every-one who would listen and challenged(and often condemned) those whowould not. In short, Jesus was theperfect embodiment of the commandfound in Leviticus: ‘‘You shall do noinjustice in judgment. You shall notbe partial to the poor, nor honor theperson of the mighty. In righteous-ness you shall judge your neighbor’’(19:15).

It is also instructive to note whatJesus did not do. He healed some sick,but not all. He established no hospi-tals or clinics, nor did He eradicatesickness in Israel, or on earth, al-though it was in His power to do so.He did not start a soup kitchen or abreadline. He paid special attention tothe poor but He did not relieve theirdebt or set them up in small busi-nesses or give them loans. Jesus lovedwidows and orphans but did notestablish a home for either. WhetherChristian agencies should be estab-lished for these concerns today isanother matter, but it would be goingbeyond both the instruction of Scrip-ture and the example of Christ (or Hisapostles later in the New Testamenthistory) to claim that we are to do sotoday because of what Jesus did whileon earth. Jesus neither commanded usto do such things nor did He do themHimself.

IS THE CULTURALMANDATE STILL IN EFFECT?

The Cultural Mandate is not ineffect today for two reasons. First, itwas only given once in Scripture and

that before the Fall of man. In Genesis1:28 the Lord commanded Adam andEve, ‘‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill theearth and subdue it; have dominionover the fish of the sea, over the birdsof the air, and over every living thingthat moves on the earth.’’

At this stage in human history,mankind was in harmony with cre-ation. Following the Fall, however,both humans and creation werecursed and harmony between manand the physical universe was lost.Never again were humans told tosubdue the earth or rule over theanimal kingdom, for they were nolonger capable of doing so. Whileman is still the chief of God’s cre-ations and able to control and tamemuch of the animal kingdom (James3:7), he is no longer able, due to sinand the curse, to either subdue theearth or rule over the animals.

The closest thing to the CulturalMandate in the remainder of Scriptureis following the Flood when Godcommissioned Noah and his family.In Genesis 9:1 a portion of the originalMandate is given for Noah’s family to‘‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill theearth’’ (see also verse 7). But ratherthan repeat the command to subdueand rule, the Lord says, ‘‘the fear ofyou and the dread of you shall be onevery beast of the earth, on every birdof the air, ... Every moving thing thatlives shall be food for you. I havegiven you all things, even as thegreen herbs’’ (9:2-3). Man is no longerliving in harmony with the animalkingdom; rather animals will fearman and man will consume animals.

When we examine the New Testa-ment for God’s directives to theChurch, we do not find anythingresembling the instructions given toAdam and Eve. Instead we find theGreat Commission.

A second reason to reject the Cul-tural Mandate today is in the detailsof the Mandate itself. Adam and Eveare called to ‘‘subdue’’ something.The Hebrew word for ‘‘subdue’’ re-quires an object. To subdue impliesthat something needed to be con-quered or put in its place. The ques-tion in Genesis 1:28 is what needed tobe subdued prior to the Fall, because

sin had not yet corrupted the humanrace or any of physical creation. Theonly possibility seems to be Satan andthe fallen angels, who were at warwith God and apparently desired torule the earth.

If this is the case, then part of man’smission was to win the struggle forthe earth over demonic creatures.When Adam failed because he choseto sin, Satan temporarily won thebattle and was promoted to ‘‘god ofthis age’’ (2 Corinthians 4:4). Man, inhis fallen state, has no ability tosubdue either demonic forces or theearth, both of which will be subduedby the New Adam. The day will comewhen Christ will create a new heavenand earth (2 Peter 3:13). Until then,creation groans under the curse of sin(Romans 8:22). The Lord will ulti-mately subdue and conquer the deviland his followers (Revelation 20:10).Until that time man is no longercalled to subdue demons (he is told toresist — James 4:7) or rule over theanimal kingdom. We are called to besalt and light in the world (Matthew5:13-16) and to fulfill the Great Com-mission (Matthew 28:19-20).

THE CHURCHAND SOCIAL ACTION

The general drift in evangelicalism,as we have seen, is toward adding thesocial action agenda to the GreatCommission as the two-prong missionof the Church. N.T. Wright is certain:

‘‘The call of the gospel is for thechurch to implement the victory ofGod in the world through suffer-ing love. ... God’s ultimate pur-pose, which is to rid the world ofevil altogether and to establishhis new creation of justice,beauty and peace. And it’s clearfrom the start that this was notintended simply as a distant goalfor which one was compelled towait in passive expectation.God’s future has already brokeninto the present in Jesus, and thechurch’s task consisted not leastof implementing that achievementand thus anticipating thatfuture.’’39

Yet some of the best thinkers withinconservative Christianity disagree.


D.A. Carson writes:

‘‘It is hard to ignore the manyinjunctions of Scripture to dogood, to show mercy, to care forthe poor, to be concerned withmatters of justice. If all suchresponsibilities belong to thechurch as a church, to the churchas an institution, then surely theleaders of the church ... shouldtake responsibility for them anddirect them. But what we find inthe New Testament is that theinitial leaders, the apostles, werecareful to carve out for them-selves the primacy of teachingthe Word of God and prayer(Acts 6:2).’’40

Michael Horton writes:

‘‘Terrorism, global warming, andAIDS are problems that we needto address as responsible humanbeings together with non-Chris-tians in our common life to-gether. ... However, the GreatCommission is not the GreatCultural Mandate. ... If we couldresolve our top ten crises in theworld today, we would still havethe devil on our back, sin master-ing our heart, and everlastingdeath as the penalty for ourmutiny.’’41

David Wells agrees:

‘‘Churches that actually do influ-ence the culture — here is theparadox — distance themselvesfrom it in their internal life. Theydo not offer what can already behad on secular terms in theculture. They are an alternativeto it.’’42

Wells calls for the Church to be solaScriptura as opposed to sola cultura.43

Charles Ryrie writes:

‘‘The Christian’s primary respon-sibilities are evangelism andgodly living. Through witnessinghe changes people; throughgodly living he does affect soci-ety; and through private andpublic obedience he honorsGod.’’44

Kevin DeYoung and Gregory Gil-bert, in their book What Is the Mission

of the Church?, express concern ‘‘thatin all our passion for renewing thecity or tackling social problems, werun the risk of marginalizing the onething that makes Christian missionChristian: namely, making disciples ofJesus Christ.’’45 They maintain thatthe mission of the Church is found inthe Great Commission passages: ‘‘Webelieve the church is sent into theworld to witness to Jesus by proclaim-ing the gospel and making disciplesof all nations. This is our task. This isour unique and central calling.’’46

And Jesse Johnson adds:

‘‘When people look to the churchto end poverty, halt human traf-ficking, bring drinking water toAfrica, or cure AIDS, they arelooking in the wrong place. Thechurch is not commissioned todo any of these tasks.’’47

THE NEW TESTAMENTINSTRUCTIONS TO THEINDIVIDUAL CHRISTIAN

Jesus’ general description of the roleof His disciples in the world is to besalt and light (Matthew 5:13-16). Thedebate surrounds the details of howto accomplish this task. In response,Jesus’ example is important and oftenmisunderstood. Jesus healed peopleprimarily as a sign pointing to whoHe was (Matthew 9:6; John 20:30).Later when Jesus commissioned Hisdisciples, He did not send them forthto solve the world’s problems but tomake disciples and to teach people toobey God (Matthew 28:20). But thisraises the question as to what com-mandments the disciples were to obeyand teach. The best approach to dis-covering these commandments is toexamine the examples of the earlyChristians, especially as found in thebook of Acts, and through study ofthe direct teachings primarily foundin the Epistles.

In the book of Acts we find thebelievers coming together for instruc-tion in the apostles’ teaching, fellow-ship, breaking of bread and prayer,and scattering to evangelize (Acts2:41-42). A major task of the earlyChristians was to establish churches(13:1-3), but there are no examples of

early Christians attempting to trans-form or create culture, or influencethe political system in a direct way.Nor do we find them organizingprograms to feed the hungry of theworld or to right social injustices.Almost all of their attention was onevangelizing the lost as well as thespiritual life and physical needs of thebelieving community.

The teachings drawn from theEpistles focus on establishing truth,combating error, correcting false liv-ing, and leading Christians into godli-ness. The subject of society is seldomaddressed, but when it is, the empha-sis is on being excellent representa-tives of Christ to the world (salt andlight) (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:11-15;Titus 3:1). Specifically, Christianswere taught to take care of their(Christians’) poor (Acts 6:1-7; 1 Timo-thy 5:3-16; 1 John 3:17; James 2:15-17),handle their own legal differences(1 Corinthians 6:1-8), and disciplinetheir rebellious people (1 Corinthians5). But they were not instructed totake care of society’s poor, handle itslegal issues, or discipline its sinners.In addition they were to treat theiremployees fairly (James 5:1-4). Pas-sages such as 1 John 3:17 and James2:15-17 could have implications forthe treatment of unbelievers, but be-cause the rest of the New Testamentinstruction is directed almost exclu-sively toward treatment of believers,it seems best to apply these versesprimarily to Christians as well.

INSTRUCTIONS TOTHE CORPORATE BODY —

THE CHURCH

In the New Testament we find theChurch as a body coming together toworship God, receive the instructionof the Word (2 Timothy 3:16-17) andthe Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians11:17-34), and participate in ‘‘body’’life (1 Corinthians 12). The Scripturesare clear that God’s people must dogood, show mercy, care for the poor,and be concerned with matters ofjustice in every aspect of society. Butthere is never any indication that theChurch as an institution is to see thisas its task. If it were to do so, thensurely the leaders of the church(elders/deacons) should take respon-


sibility for them and direct them.‘‘But,’’ as Carson notes, ‘‘what wefind in the New Testament is that theinitial leaders, the apostles, were care-ful to carve out for themselves theprimacy of teaching the Word of Godand prayer (Acts 6:2). Even matters ofjustice within the congregation were insome measure handed over to otherspirit-filled men (6:1-7). When thedistinctive duties of pastors/elders/bishops are canvassed, the priority ofthe ministry of the Word and prayeris paramount,’’48 not organizing com-munity and social outreaches.

The Church, as the Church, wasnever given the task of transformingor creating culture. Its sole biblicalmandate to the world is to makedisciples. Christians as individuals areto be salt and light in our world.Individual believers may very well beinvolved, alongside the unbelieverand within biblical parameters, inpolitics, social action, and protectingGod’s creation. Much variety on thecultural level is allowed by our Lord.But it must not be minimized that theNew Testament example and preceptis that followers of Christ are todisciple people for Him which in-cludes evangelism and training inobedience.

When we draw our marching or-ders from the New Testament ratherthan the culture, it becomes clear thatthe task of the Church is to take theGospel to the ends of the earth,making disciples of all who come toChrist (Matthew 28:18-20), and caringfor the needy who become part of thebody of Christ (1 Timothy 5:16; Gala-tians 2:10). Broader social action is notprohibited, but it should not beequated with these two essential obli-gations.

It has proven almost impossible forthe Church to keep the biblical com-mand of the Great Commission inbalance with the Cultural Mandate,once such a mandate is accepted aspart of the mission of the Church.Those following this philosophywould abandon the Christ-given mis-sion of making disciples for the taskof improving society. Those churchesand Christians who saw the error ofthe social gospel continued to center

their lives and ministries on the GreatCommission. It is the descendants ofthese very churches and believerswho are now being influenced towiden their understanding of thecalling of Christ to include a socialimproving agenda. Unless there is areturn to the biblical mandate givenin the New Testament, the evangelicalChurch is in danger of repeating thesame error of the 19th and 20thcentury Church with predictableresults.

Endnotes:1. John R.W. Stott, ‘‘Salt & Light, FourWays Christians Can Influence theWorld,’’ Christianity Today, October 2011,pg. 41.2. ‘‘The Whole Church Taking the WholeGospel to the Whole World (Condensed),’’The Lausanne Movement Web site. Docu-ment accessed at: www.lausanne.org/ru/component/content/article.html?id=1194.3. Ibid., italics in original.4. ‘‘The Lausanne Covenant,’’ The Lau-sanne Movement Web site, emphasisadded. Document accessed at: www.lausanne.org/en/documents/lausanne-covenant.html .5. Francis Chan, Crazy Love. ColoradoSprings, Colo.: David C. Cook, 2008, pg.21.6. David Platt, Radical. Colorado Springs,Colo: Multnomah Books, 2010, pp. 13-17,19-21, 76-82, 108-140.7. Ibid., pg. 135.8. Ibid., pg. 115.9. Ibid., pg. 225.10. Kevin DeYoung and Gregory D. Gil-bert, What Is the Mission of the Church?Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2011, pg. 49.11. N.T. Wright cited in Timothy Keller,The Reason for God. New York: Dutton,Penguin Group, 2008, pg. 212, quotationrendered in italics in original.12. Ibid., pg. 223, italic in original.13. N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul ReallySaid. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997, pg. 41.14. Ibid., pg. 45.15. Ibid., pg. 53.16. Ibid., pp. 153-154.17. Ibid., pp. 154, 155.18. Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Ortho-doxy. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan,2004, pg. 105.19. Ibid., pg. 113.20. Ibid., pg. 223, italics in original.21. Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis. Grand Rapids,Mich.: Zondervan, 2005, pp. 147, 150.22. ‘‘God’s Earth is Sacred: An OpenLetter to Church and Society in the UnitedStates,’’ February 14, 2005, National Coun-cil of Churches Web site, italics in original.

Document accessed at: www.ncccusa.org/news/godsearthissacred.html.23. Brian D. McLaren, A New Kind ofChristianity. San Francisco: HarperCollins,2010, pg. 135.24. Crazy Love, op. cit., pg. 119.25. Ibid., pg. 140.26. ‘‘Salt & Light, Four Ways ChristiansCan Influence the World,’’ op. cit., pp. 40,41.27. Crazy Love, op. cit., pg. 140.28. Michael W. Goheen and Craig G.Bartholomew, Living at the Crossroads.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic,2008, pg. 66.29. Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth: LiberatingChristianity from Its Cultural Captivity.Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2004, pg.17.30. Ibid., pp. 48-49, italic in original.31. Ibid., pg. 73.32. Charles Ryrie, The Christian & SocialResponsibility. Fort Worth: Tyndale Semi-nary Press, 2008, pg. 38.33. What Is the Mission of the Church?, op.cit., pg. 175.34. William Hendriksen, New TestamentCommentary, Exposition of the Gospel Ac-cording to Matthew. Grand Rapids, Mich.:Baker Book House, 1977, pp. 282, 284,italics in original.35. Ibid., pp. 284, 285, italic in original.36. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in theSermon on the Mount. Grand Rapids, Mich.:Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991,Vol. 1, pg. 158.37. Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of theSermon on the Mount. Grand Rapids, Mich.:Baker Books, 1953, pg. 46.38. R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, TheNew International Commentary of the NewTestament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: WilliamB. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007, pg. 177.39. N.T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God.Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,2006, pp. 98, 102, italics in original.40. D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revis-ited. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerd-mans Publishing Co., 2008, pg. 151, italicsin original.41. Michael Horton, The Gospel-Driven Life.Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009, pg. 164.42. David Wells, The Courage to be Protes-tant. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerd-mans Publishing Co., 2008, pg. 224.43. Ibid., pg. 4.44. The Christian & Social Responsibility, op.cit., pg. 69.45. What Is the Mission of the Church?, op.cit., pg. 22.46. Ibid., pg. 26.47. Jesse Johnson in John MacArthur,Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong.Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House Publishers,2009, pg. 213.48. Christ and Culture Revisited, op. cit., pg.151, italics in original.

inside this issue: tbn fraud reported page 3 social gospel.pdf · ‘‘the whole church taking the...

Documents