# Practical aid as "mission"



## steadfast7 (Sep 18, 2011)

Acts 11 reads, 27Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). 29So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. 30And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.

Is being "sent" to offer practical aid, either to churches or to impoverished communities included in the term "mission"?


----------



## elnwood (Sep 18, 2011)

Well, "mission" is not strictly a Biblical term, so it's hard to objectively say was does and does not constitute it. That said, as long as Christians are called to clothe and feed the poor and hungry (Isaiah 58:7, Matthew 25:31ff), it will be part of our witness.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 18, 2011)

elnwood said:


> Well, "mission" is not strictly a Biblical term, so it's hard to objectively say was does and does not constitute it. That said, as long as Christians are called to clothe and feed the poor and hungry (Isaiah 58:7, Matthew 25:31ff), it will be part of our witness.


If it's part of the "witness", does it also make it part of the great commission? and, in what sense is it part? Is it the means to grant a hearing of the gospel? Or, is it actually the working out of the gospel itself?


----------



## elnwood (Sep 18, 2011)

Good question, and a difficult one. I think the distinction that needs to be made is the gospel message itself, which is to be proclaimed, and brings salvation, and the ministry of the proclamation of the gospel.

In Luke 4, Jesus quotes Isaiah 61:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

It seems to me that aid and healing is not the gospel message itself, at least in the way that Paul talks about the gospel. However, Luke 4/Isaiah 61 seems to include freeing/helping the poor as part of what the proclamation of gospel does. The two are tied very closely together.

I'm not sure if I've done anything but muddy the waters, but I think the distinction is not always clear, but I'm not sure if it needs to be cut and dry. We all know that both need to be done and is essential to a viable gospel ministry. Deacons were appointed in Acts 6 to allow the elders to continue proclaiming the gospel while the deacons cared for the physical needs.

Is there a pragmatic question to go along with this regarding how missionaries ought to operate?


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 18, 2011)

I've been doing some listening to Mike Horton's radio programs on the "White Horse Inn" and it's been sharpening my understanding of the gospel. He says that the typical verse in 2 Corinthians 5 about being given the "ministry of reconciliation" is often misinterpreted by the church. It is not that we are agents of reconciliation (bringing social and community transformation), but that we are heralds of God's reconciliation already performed in Christ. Thus the main task of the church is gospel proclamation and not humanitarian aid. That the church is to provide aid is not in response to the great commission but the great commandment. However, in wider church today, the Great Commission and the Great Commandment are merging into one. People feel that by engaging darkness and doing good works that it is equivalent to sharing the gospel. If Paul and Barnabas were sent to deliver practical aid, there is a sense in which this falls into the pale of missions. Mind you, this would muddy the waters a great deal!


----------



## Scottish Lass (Sep 18, 2011)

It seems to me that practical aid (food, clothing, or money designated for that purpose, etc.) should be in response to and flow from the gospel rather than the other way around. Too often it seems the aid is given the priority and the gospel is tacked on. Now, in the case of Dennis' OP and "the brothers living in Judea," it seems we have a clear example when dealing with believers/fellow churches. But most practical aid I'm familiar with is given to unbelievers.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 18, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > Well, "mission" is not strictly a Biblical term, so it's hard to objectively say was does and does not constitute it. That said, as long as Christians are called to clothe and feed the poor and hungry (Isaiah 58:7, Matthew 25:31ff), it will be part of our witness.
> ...



If the Great Commission includes teaching all that Jesus commanded and if the Bible commands loving others and we are to follow the example of Christ in all that we do, and if Jesus is said to have gone "preaching and healing" in every village, I do not see that we need to split apart Word and Works and form a false dichotomy between "Doing missions" versus "Doing humanitarian works." I have actually heard churches fault some missionaries for engaging in too many humanitarian works or fault them for spending too much of their time in such works. But I think we also have to remember the book of James and back up our faith with our deeds and our Words with our works.



> MINISTRY TO THE WHOLE PERSON
> 
> Ministry in Word and Ministry in Deed belong together.
> 
> ...



Perhaps in urban Japan we can solely focus on bible teaching apart from good works but in many places in the world it would seem nearly impossible to just try to teach the bible while ignoring the poor and starving or dieased at your doorstep. And even in Japan with the recent tsunami there appears to be many opportunities to show the love of Christ through Works in addition to Word.


----------



## jennywigg (Sep 18, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> I've been doing some listening to Mike Horton's radio programs on the "White Horse Inn" and it's been sharpening my understanding of the gospel. He says that the typical verse in 2 Corinthians 5 about being given the "ministry of reconciliation" is often misinterpreted by the church. It is not that we are agents of reconciliation (bringing social and community transformation), but that we are heralds of God's reconciliation already performed in Christ. Thus the main task of the church is gospel proclamation and not humanitarian aid. That the church is to provide aid is not in response to the great commission but the great commandment. However, in wider church today, the Great Commission and the Great Commandment are merging into one. People feel that by engaging darkness and doing good works that it is equivalent to sharing the gospel. If Paul and Barnabas were sent to deliver practical aid, there is a sense in which this falls into the pale of missions. Mind you, this would muddy the waters a great deal!



I've just been reading an article on this subject in the latest _Modern Reformation_. My understanding is that these types of "relief" flow from the gospel rather than being "the gospel" themselves.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 18, 2011)

Modernreformation has influenced my thinking on this as well. There is certainly nothing intrinsically Christian about doing good works; every one does them and everyone has been commanded to love one's neighbour. Sure, Christians should be the "best" at doing them, and our light should overshadow the efforts because of the Spirit's power at work in us. However as it relates with the Great Commission, the planting of churches seems primary. I like to think that the solution to world hunger, human trafficking, and AIDS is the local church.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 19, 2011)

If the Gospel doesn't have social and humanitarian impact, then I doubt if it is the true Gospel. Word and Works always go together.


Instead of planting local churches, I would prefer to speak of our mission as "discipling the nations" or "Planting (and rooting) the Church (big C)" which is a bit broader than initially planting local churches (little c) and could include a number of ancillary tasks which help to build up, edify, or assist the Church in those new areas of expansion.

We all agree that our mission is conversionist, but I simply don't think we can divide Good Words from Good Works into two neatly separate categories. I would like to see a single faithful missionary to my region, for instance, who is not also strenously engaged in "holistic" ministries of all sorts even though they desire strong disciples as their first goal. 



Also, maybe we can start a new thread, but I prefer "Church Planting" rather than "church planting" as our major goal, if that distinction makes sense, since much valid evangelism is very productive for one category but not always the other (such as campus ministries, etc., that produce many disciples but not many local churches).


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 19, 2011)

The relationship between humanitarian aid and mission is analogous to the relationship between faith and works. The latter flows from former but is not intrinsically essential to it. There is nothing particularly christian about good works as we are all commanded to love our neighbor regardless of religion. Conversion always results from the word preached and does not require works in order to be effective. It just so happens that God is often pleased to accompany the gospel with works, but he might accompany it with something else.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 19, 2011)

> The relationship between humanitarian aid and mission is analogous to the relationship between faith and works. The latter flows from former but is not intrinsically essential to it



Faith without works is dead; and a tree is known by its fruits. Bearing fruit is one of the objects of our salvation and not merely an "add-on." 

No fruit = no faith.



> There is nothing particularly christian about good works as we are all commanded to love our neighbor regardless of religion.



We are to do good to all; especially the household of faith. 

Plus, only Christians can truly do good works. There is no such thing as a "good work" at all except done by a Christian in the name of Christ.

Also, I think it is dangerous to put Christian charity on the same plain as the charity of all others, since much other charity is self-serving or out of mere duty or an effort to buy heaven by your merits (we just finished Ramadhan here and this truth is all too obvious here). Thus, we have a qualitative difference between Christian charity and all other charities.




> Conversion always results from the word preached and does not require works in order to be effective.



Not true.

First, there are many who seek out more info after seeing the works of Christian.

Second, Paul frequently points to his own example and lifestyle as an evidence of God's power and work. 

Third, in contexts other than the "preached" word, such as hearing prayers, informal testimonies and Q and A, and through other means such as social networking, written explanations of the Gospel, etc, many are saved. Your statement is untrue unless we define "preaching" more broadly.

I was saved by reading the Scripture by myself in my room.

Fourth, there are some aquainted with Christian doctrine and who reject it; until seeing the lifestyles of believers. Bare doctrine is not enough. 

In interviewing Javanese Christians, most of them reported that a Christians friend praying for them was THE major factor in them gaining a desire to learn more, with the witness of the lives of Christians and how well they treat others being also a major factor. This was replicated in interviews with Sundanese believers in West Java. Thus, non-cognitive factors often figure largely in the conversion process of many throughout the world and most in regions of Indonesia.



> It just so happens that God is often pleased to accompany the gospel with works, but he might accompany it with something else.



Huh?

What would that "something else" be?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 19, 2011)

Below are some good links:

The Sola Panel | Of coffee, gospel and social action



> Evangelism and social action are inseparable
> All the same, the language of ‘priority’ is probably not so useful (as in ‘evangelism has priority’), because it might imply that we sit down and devise our evangelistic ‘To Do’ list, and then see if there is any time left to help people (agenda items 16 through 20). In reality, the two happen side by side as we love people, live among them and seek to bring them the gospel. Proclamation may be central, but its context will be a life of love that seeks to do good to those around us. The nature of this loving social action will be largely determined by our circumstances (i.e. preaching the gospel in the slums of Calcutta will require a different form of action than if we were preaching in a leafy, materialist suburb, where the pressing need may not be material deprivation but a breakdown in relationships, marriages and family life).




Below is Tim Keller's take:

Themelios - Issue 33-3



> (1) Believing the Gospel Will Move Us to Give to the Poor
> 
> Edwards repeatedly shows us how an understanding of what he calls "the rules of the gospel"—the pattern and logic of the gospel—inevitably moves us to love and help the poor. While Edwards believes that the command to give to the poor is an implication of the teaching that all human beings are made in the image of God,8 he believes that the most important motivation for giving to the poor is the gospel: Giving to the poor "is especially reasonable, considering our circumstances, under such a dispensation of grace as that of the gospel."9
> 
> ...






> In light of the biblical material, many today are seeking for some sort of balance. On the one hand, some say that while both are necessary, social concern is the means to the end of evangelism. That is, we should do mercy and justice only because and as it helps us bring people to faith in Christ.28 This does not seem to fit in with Jesus' Good Samaritan parable, which calls us to care even for those who are "ungrateful and wicked" (Luke 6:35). The means-to-an-end view opens Christians to the charge of manipulation. Instead of truly loving people freely, we are helping them only to help ourselves and increase our own numbers. One of the great ironies of this approach is that it undermines itself. I have known many evangelicals who evaluate mercy ministries by the number of converts or church attenders/members it produces. The sociologist Robert Putnam describes such church-based initiatives as church-centred bonding (or exclusive) social capital, as opposed to community-centered bridging (or inclusive) social capital.29 That is, the ministry of these kinds of churches is not really designed to build up the neighbors but only to expand the church. But this approach is perceived as selfish and tribal by the people around the church, and so they don't glorify God (Matt 5:13–16) because they don't see us expressing God's sacrificial, unconditional grace. They see us giving only where we get something in return (Luke 6:32–35).
> 
> On the other hand, others such as John Stott see evangelism and social concern as equal partners:
> 
> ...






MissionSHIFT: Integral Missions « Justin Peter



> “Integral mission or holistic transformation is the proclamation and demonstration of the gospel. It is not simply that evangelism and social involvement are to be done alongside each other. Rather, in integral mission our proclamation has social consequences as we call people to love and repentance in all areas of life. And our social involvement has evangelistic consequences as we bear witness to the transforming grace of God which sends us out to serve the world.”


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 19, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Faith without works is dead; and a tree is known by its fruits. Bearing fruit is one of the objects of our salvation and not merely an "add-on."


 This is not a question of whether Christians should do good works. We are in full agreement that we should, and do it more than others, and do it the best. My only argument here is that there is an important distinction between the Great Commission and the Great Commandment. They are not synonymous and they are do not merge to become the same thing.


Pergamum said:


> > Conversion always results from the word preached and does not require works in order to be effective.
> 
> 
> Not true.
> ...


 There are many, but this does not make it a necessary precursor to conversion.



> Second, Paul frequently points to his own example and lifestyle as an evidence of God's power and work.


 this is the gospel's _effects_ on the regenerated life, which I do not deny.



> Third, in contexts other than the "preached" word, such as hearing prayers, informal testimonies and Q and A, and through other means such as social networking, written explanations of the Gospel, etc, many are saved. Your statement is untrue unless we define "preaching" more broadly.


 Yes, I am referring to the word preached as broadly as possible, as long as it essentially verbal and not "Preach the gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words."



> I was saved by reading the Scripture by myself in my room.


 Amen.



> Fourth, there are some aquainted with Christian doctrine and who reject it; until seeing the lifestyles of believers. Bare doctrine is not enough.


 The Holy Spirit has not regenerated their heart. it is not doctrine or the lack which is at issue. Many others are saved by means of a corrupt gospel.



> In interviewing Javanese Christians, most of them reported that a Christians friend praying for them was THE major factor in them gaining a desire to learn more, with the witness of the lives of Christians and how well they treat others being also a major factor. This was replicated in interviews with Sundanese believers in West Java. Thus, non-cognitive factors often figure largely in the conversion process of many throughout the world and most in regions of Indonesia.


 These are only factors in that they are sovereignly ordained means God has chosen to use. But they are not _required_ in the regenerating act which is by God's grace alone. There can be NO human contribution to salvation for it to be of grace. This is not to say that humans are not involved and obligated to do certain things, but these are ultimately divinely ordained means. Finney was wrong to think that anyone could make a true profession of faith if only the psychological and practical conditions were manipulated and met. God may use something other than good works to save people. At Peter's pentecost sermon, no practical helps contributed to their step of faith; they were simply cut to the heart by his preaching. At other times, God may use supernatural signs and wonders to save, also without much practical gain to be had.

I know we both agree fundamentally about this Perg. It's probably just a semantic issue we have.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 19, 2011)

Dennis,


Yes, I think you are right about semantics.


----------

