Matthew 18:16-20 (NASB)
When we read Matthew 28:16-20 I get the feel from both the Greek and the English that doing good works for the sake of doing good works in hopes of being recognized is not what Jesus had in mind. The feel of the passage is personal and long term because of the command to “make disciples.” But if we look at the idea of doing good works while sharing the gospel, that is not out of line with the idea from Acts, Leviticus 19:18, or any number of passages about loving our neighbor and sharing the eternal truth we hold. Everything we do should be with the intent of sharing the gospel. Again don’t get me wrong about the event where we helped the mission. God can and will bring good from it, but He also does the same with disasters, diseases, and other forms of calamity.
A response to the article from March 13th was posted and asked the entitled question: Why is it that people are more comfortable inviting people to church or just doing a good work than in sharing their faith in Christ with others? I have thought long and hard about that question and have come up with the following responses. On this posting we will deal with Response 1.
Response 1-Culture has pressured us into thinking we don’t have the right to share the gospel.
Anyone who does a study on our religious history will see a sudden down turn that starts about the 1920s. In fact I have a theory that the years 1630-1920 and again from 1948-1968 are more anomalies in church history than anything else. They are not true to the way Christians have had to live in regards to pursuing God and building His Kingdom through the local churches He has established. Regardless, in the 1920s we can see a sudden decline in church attendance and activity.[1] [2] Something happens between 1890 and 1920 which changes the land scape for the churches. Starting around 1920 up until 1948 churches slide into a deep decline where membership of the local body is only about half of what it was previously. In reality even with the revivals of 1948-1968 there is no real recovery that occurs. Whereas at one time in American culture Christians and churches had great influence in law and culture, by the revivals of the mid-twentieth century that influence is almost non-existent.
So the question that needs to be asked is what happened between 1890 and 1920? Three things occurred under the two umbrellas of religion and education. In the area of religion two theological issues would rise up taking Biblical trust by storm. The first was building since the 1840s under the leadership of Charles Finney. The other would start in the 1880s under the leadership of Walter Rauschenbusch (I will blog about him on a deeper level later). Both of these men interpreted the idea of evangelism through the eyes of morality and social justice.[3] [4] Finney had been in the thicket of battle dealing with slavery before the American Civil War (1861-1865). [5] Rauschenbusch believed and taught in the Social Gospel while serving as a Baptist Pastor in the “Hell’s Kitchen” providence of New York City in the 1880s until his death in 1918.[6] Both men shaped the theology and evangelism in ways that where never recorded before. Finney had his “new measures” that treated evangelism more as a project than a way of life; while Rauschenbusch helped move the idea that evangelism would occur as a community effort.
At the same time that this was going on men like John Dewey met to discuss an America without religion. This group of educators, philosophers, socialist, and politicians produced a document now known as The Humanist Manifesto 1 which was finalized in 1933.[7] The idea was to build a secular society and not one based on the religion of anything but the deity of man. With this several other manifestos would follow in 1973, 1980, 1993, and 2003. Presently there is one under work. Each of the following manifestos would help further define the intent of these groups and the steps which needed to be taken to secularize the society. According to the first manifesto education was the first step.
With both of these contending forces at work within and without the church walls decline was going to be the sure result. On one level the churches would begin the process of relying on programs such as the “new methods” rather than relying on God. The second level is that sharing the gospel would become more of social and group thing rather than an individual responsibility. And the final level would be the pressure from secularist to push religious views out of the public square by which Plato’s Republic would become more of a reality. All of this would cause the churches to become more self-reliant and at the same time become more inward. The churches in the United States would suddenly introvert and outreach would become truly non-existent.
Join me in our second discussion on this matter next week.
Your comments and thoughts are welcomed.