Dearly beloved, At first, I hesitated to write this message because it will most likely be deemed anomalous and tacky by some. Yet, in the interest of restoring true New Testament evangelism, I am compelled by strong conviction and love for the truth to bring this matter to your knowledgeable attention. It seems that in the process of getting people to accept the Gospel, the Church has embraced a Gospel that is acceptable to people - the gospel of Abraham Maslow’s (a godless atheist) hierarchy of needs that is. In a recorded/posted message, “God’s Antidote for Hurt” (La Habra Christian Church http://www.mylhcc.com/ ), Gayla Congdon, female preacher and founder of AMOR ministries, develops Maslow’s classic approach to solving man’s deep-seated problems by first fulfilling his physical needs and then moving on up (or down) the hierarchy of needs until the spiritual necessities are met. The problem with this socialized Gospel is that it turns Jesus’ words upside down, who said that we are to seek first the kingdom of God. What good does it do to tend to man’s physical needs if his soul is in grave danger of going to Hell?? Of course, many Christian leaders today do not believe in a true Hell as described in Scripture. A second problem with this social gospel is that it creates rice-Christians. "So what if we seduce people into the church by providing for their physical needs?" you ask. Well, you might fill the churches for a little while but the results will not last into eternity. True conversion involves conviction. First it creates a conviction of sin or wrongdoing, and then of sound doctrine. Neither of these is produced by Congdon’s version of the social Gospel.

It seems that Gayla has made quite a name for herself over these years. Clearly, she wields an unprecedented influence, specially among our more-liberal minded brethren. She has virtually built an empire around herself via AMOR ministries – an interdenominational organization that began at PCC and eventually made its way down to San Diego where it is housed in an impressive warehouse building close to the Mexican border. Since its inception, AMOR has gained tremendous momentum and a high-profile image through its shelter-building activities in Mexico. Though the Congdon’s claim that the Body of Christ is being built up in Mexico through their benevolence ministry, this is not entirely accurate. Yes, they have and do work with or through local congregations, but I would challenge anyone to go back to any of those churches today and see how many of those that were “reached” through AMOR are actually loyal to those congregations and are growing in the Lord. Furthermore, AMOR is not a Christian Church/ Church of Christ ministry though it tries to pass itself off as one. Thus, it seldom (if ever) contributes to the growth of Mexican Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, yet it freely solicits support from brotherhood churches who blindly and naively contribute to this quasi para-church organization. AMOR is, in a very real sense, a LEACH organization that sucks resources out of the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ (as well as other religious groups) and invests it non CC/CC interests. It seems that Gayla is more concerned about building her personal legacy than with seeing people come to Christ through the New Testament Gospel that includes immersion in Christ for the remission of sins.

“The World Christian Movement” By Albert Dager http://www.banner.org.uk/globalism/WCM1.html http://www.banner.org.uk/globalism/WCM2.html http://www.banner.org.uk/globalism/WCM3.html http://www.banner.org.uk/globalism/WCM4.html La Habra Christian Church http://www.mylhcc.com/ Gayla Congdon's Social Gospel http://www.mylhcc.com/audio/ Join the discussion forum http://www.mylhcc.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=2

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2002

Answers

Thanks for the warning & update Philip.

The turn toward a more "social" gospel has been quite noticeable in recent years and is disturbing - to say the least. That is basically what the "Disciples" churches have become.............that ought to serve as a warning in & of itself.

It would seem that there are many who, for whatever reason, have forgotten WHAT the Gospel actually is and WHY they are supposed to be bringing it.

Looks like hell will one day be filled with people with full bellies, but empty hearts.

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2002

Dear Mark, I really appreciate your input. Do you think that you could possibly help me get others to stop by this thread? I firmly believe that this is an all-important issue and it needs to be discussed widely. Thank you once again for your feedback.

PS: If others in your church family or circle of friends would care to carry on a discussion with me concerning this topic, please pass on my email to them: philcmme@telnor.net

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2002

Phil;

I have been deep in thought about this post of yours since I first read it. I see both side to the story. I agree with you in some ways, but I see a part of the other side that I think you are missing.

James said what good is it if you tell a person to be warm and well fed and do nothing. The world sees us as "organized religion" and rejects us. Often they know nothing of our plea to restore the church of Christ to the ways of the first century church. They see a building and scoff.

Churches are built on how the church is willing to minister to its community. IF you look at the pattern of Matthew 25:19, it says as you go into the world, disciple the ethnics. That means do what it takes to bring people to discipleship so they can be saved. We often want to save them first and then make little or no attempt to disciple them. So the church must get this priority straight first. How do we disciple?

I ask this because I have found that for me, making disciples requires bridgebuilding. Sometimes it requires food or clothing or shelter, but above all, it requires time.

This is not a social gospel. IT is also not the extreme to which LHCC seems to take it. In seeking first the kingdom of God, Jesus I believe is talking to believers, Jews who are caught up in their religiosity. They believed in God, now they had to seek first his kingdom. The lost, Jesus took time with them and yes, even ate with them. Does Zachaeus ring a bell?

One thing that I seem to get out of reading your post is that it sounds like you want people to become Christians and you want to use the gospel like a club. YOu can't force submission to Christ, and understand that fruit ripens at its own pace. We are NOT required to save souls, that is God's job. We are to plant seed.

The over zealous over heaping social churches that want to entertain and provide frills, I believe are over doing it. But it is not a blanket indictment of the many that use ministry to encourage people to see that there is a true church that cares. When Christianity is demonstrated it cannot produce merely a "rice Christian." It is a seed planted, only God knows what fruit it will produce.

Yes it is sad that so many will parish. Yet it is their own freewill that leads them down the path. What is being done at these over zealous churches is not turning them away from Christ, as they are already there. So to me, if that kind of ministry can take 2 out 10 lost souls and make them disciples as opposed to 10 out of 10 wondering from soup kitchen to alley way to divorce courts etc and never finding Christ, I'll take the former.

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2002

Philip it has seemed to me that in a lot of Churches today that they are full of people who have never been born again according to the Gosple.Jesus said we must be born again and that no one can come to him except the Spirit draws them.How many were drawn by materialism not the Spirit.I am running into this problem at Church right now,they are looking for a new Minister rihgt now.I had the oppertunity to preach there 3 weeks ago I spoke on fasting and prayer so that we could hear what the Lord wants.Instead of prayer the pulpit committy made up a bunch of there personal requirements none of them according to scripture.One was that the minister make a daily log of all their activities each day.Also taking applications from prospective applicants so they could decide on one.No mention of prayer for guidance.The elders in this church are deplorable one has attended only one in 8 services since Oct.The other is his father-in- law,he said it was alright because his son-in-law gave a lot of money to the church.They are the only two elders this church has.It is one big mess.Their only concern is money in a dispute with them the older elder wanted to tll everyone how much money they give each year.We need God to step in and take over.

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2002

Dear Bill,

I appreciate “deep thought” wherever I can find it. I also agree that we need to maintain a balanced perspective and I apologize if I have come across as being unbalanced. My objective was to underscore an all-important issue that has the potential of seriously undermining the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, allow me to respond to your post in the order in which you gave your comments.

You state: “James said what good is it if you tell a person to be warm and well

fed and do nothing.”

R: You have misquoted James on this point. He is very clear when he says: “If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?” This is entirely consistent with Paul’s instruction in Galatians 6:10 “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” What the Social Gospel wants to do is turn these priorities upside down, tending the physical needs of the non-believers while totally ignoring the needs of the brethren. Furthermore, they foolishly believe that by feeding the poor that they will win them to Christ. This is not only naive at best, it just doesn’t work in the long run – trust me. Jesus said: “For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.” – Matt. 26:11 It was He (not me) who gave us the order of priorities for benevolent ministry: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” – Matt. 6:33

You state: “The world sees us as "organized religion" and rejects us.”

R: Yes, the world does often see Christianity as organized religion, but it has been precisely the Social Gospel that has contributed the most to that perception. In Mexico, for example, non-believers often see the help that the “gringos” give as just a ploy to buy their religious loyalty. Throwing money at the problem is not going to solve anything. Oh, they’ll go along with it as long as they get something out of it, but I seriously challenge anyone to follow up on these so-called conversions using the Social Gospel and prove that these people have been truly converted to the Lord.

You state: “Often they know nothing of our plea to restore the church of Christ to the ways of the first century church. They see a building and scoff.”

R: Of course they don’t know of our plea to restore NT Christianity, because the resources that should be used to send evangelists to the field, are being used to fund orphanages, clinics, rehab centers, etc. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with these programs in themselves (specially in countries where they become the only open door of opportunity to do evangelism), but they have become an end instead of the means. As an example, allow me to share just one experience we have had on the mission field. During the late 70’s and early 80’s, the children’s home the CMME founded was using more than 90% of the Mission’s budget. This is one of the reasons why we decided to cut it loose – it has been in independent ministry since. But even in its present state, the children’s home consumes many times over the amount of resources that are spent on evangelism in the area. I challenge anyone to produce proof that this “ministry” is an efficient way of producing converts to Christ. On the other hand, if we took those same resources and invested them in evangelism, maybe less women would have to put their neglected children in institutional care and could be re-integrated into society via the local Body of Christ.

Let me propose a different approach – a Biblical plan. Let’s invest in a large meeting place (that we will call an “evangelistic center” for now) and equip it to reach out to those in need among the many being saved through the Gospel. You know, many who come to Christ in Mexico suddenly find themselves disinherited and without a steady source of income. Let’s tend to their needs first, and then reach out to the non-believers through a combination of evangelism and benevolence. How does that sound?

You state: “Churches are built on how the church is willing to minister to its community.”

R: NO! The Church is built on the foundations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” – Rom. 10:14-17 You have been lending an ear to the church-growth and missiology gurus for much to long, Bill.

You state: “IF you look at the pattern of Matthew 25:19, it says as you go into the world, disciple the ethnics. That means do what it takes to bring people to discipleship so they can be saved.”

R: NO, Bill. It does not mean “do what it takes to bring people to discipleship”. Words mean things and Matt. 25:19 means what it says: “After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.” J You are probably referring to chapter 28, and verse 19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” In context, Christ clearly states what he means by what he says: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (v. 20) It is the teaching that must both precede and follow after conversion. You state: “We often want to save them first and then make little or no attempt to disciple them. So the church must get this priority straight first.”

R: As is clear from the Great Commission, discipleship comes before and after conversion. The Bible does not compartmentalize discipleship like we have done today.

You state: “How do we disciple? I ask this because I have found that for me, making disciples requires bridgebuilding. Sometimes it requires food or clothing or shelter, but above all, it requires time.”

R: The obvious question is, how much “bridge-building”? How much food, clothing, and/ or shelter? For how long? The answer in reality is quite often that the newcomers via the Social Gospel only remain as long as their is something in it for them and not a minute longer.

You state: “This is not a social gospel. IT is also not the extreme to which LHCC seems to take it.”

R: Judge for yourself. I have only presented what Gayla Congdon has stated publicly. No reference was ever made to the policy of LHCC.

You state: “In seeking first the kingdom of God, Jesus I believe is talking to believers, Jews who are caught up in their religiosity. They believed in God, now they had to seek first his kingdom. The lost, Jesus took time with them and yes, even ate with them. Does Zachaeus ring a bell?”

R: Bill, you do dance wonderfully with the Scriptures. The context, my friend, the context! Matt. 6:25-34 Clearly states: “Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” The issue that Jesus is addressing is on of spiritual priorities over material ones. I don’t have the vaguest idea where you get your understanding of this passage from. You seem to have a strong tendency to read into the Word whatever you want it to say.

You state: “One thing that I seem to get out of reading your post is that it sounds like you want people to become Christians and you want to use the gospel like a club.” R: Good grief Bill! Give me a break why don’t you! You do not know you and me are not at all qualified to make such a preposterous characterization like this. I have helped and continue to help many an under-privileged soul with more than my share of giving. I have done this since I was a kid. Yet, I do not use benevolence as “club” to beat people into submission to the Gospel. You state: “You can't force submission to Christ, and understand that fruit ripens at its own pace. We are NOT required to save souls, that is God's job.” R: Now that has to be about the most pitiful argument I have ever heard. Of course nobody can be forced into submission to Christ, but those who preach the Social Gospel are the ones that would have us believe otherwise. They think they can force people into the kingdom of God (as they conceive it) through their benevolent ministry. As the second have of this statement, it sounds like a good Calvinist speaking. If we do not have any part in bringing people to Christ, why evangelize at all? Let God take care of it! In fact, why even bother with benevolence if God can convert people without our help? True conversion never happens without some form of contact with God’s Holy Word. True, the Holy Spirit does interact directly with an individual, but He works to bring that individual into a relationship to God through the knowledge of his will as revealed in the Scriptures. You state: “We are to plant seed. The over zealous over heaping social churches that want to entertain and provide frills, I believe are over doing it.” R: Why? What is your criterion? You State: But it is not a blanket indictment of the many that use ministry to encourage people to see that there is a true church that cares.” R: Cares for what? There physical needs above their spiritual needs? That is Maslow’s Gospel. You state: “When Christianity is demonstrated it cannot produce merely a "rice Christian." It is a seed planted, only God knows what fruit it will produce.” R: In all the NT, it is the Gospel that is the seed, not benevolence. You state: “Yes it is sad that so many will parish. Yet it is their own freewill that leads them down the path.” R: True, but you have just contradicted a previous statement about God doing all the work. If God does the converting, that it is He that must be blamed for not having brought the non-believer to a saving knowledge of His Son. In fact, it is us who are guilty of not giving a clear presentation of the Gospel. Furthermore. The worldly lifestyle of most Christians in America sends a mixed signal that neutralizes any “seed” the Social Gospel might plant. You state: “What is being done at these over zealous churches is not turning them away from Christ, as they are already there. So to me, if that kind of ministry can take 2 out 10 lost souls and make them disciples as opposed to 10 out of 10 wondering from soup kitchen to alley way to divorce courts etc and never finding Christ, I'll take the former.” R: Maybe, but are we winning them to Christ or the Social Gospel?

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2002

It seems like our friend Bill is quite upset over the content of my response to him. So much so, that he feels that I need an attitude adjustment. What do the rest of you think?

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2002

"It seems like our friend Bill is quite upset over the content of my response to him. So much so, that he feels that I need an attitude adjustment."

Phillip -- I'm sorry, but I where did you get the above idea? You posted, he responded, you responded to his response, then said the above, when he hadn't "re-responded" to your answers to his statement?

Wow -- did that make sense?

-- Anonymous, April 29, 2002

In his response to my original post, our friend Bill stated:

“In seeking first the kingdom of God, Jesus I believe is talking to believers, Jews who are caught up in their religiosity. They believed in God, now they had to seek first his kingdom. The lost, Jesus took time with them and yes, even ate with them. Does Zachaeus ring a bell?”

Although I responded to the first half of this statement, I missed the second half that makes reference to Zacchaeus. I am not quite sure what bill intended to prove with this, but I believe that it’s safe to assume that he sees Jesus reaching out in benevolent ministry to Zacchaeus as a pre-evangelism act of bridge building. The other possibility is that he sees Zacchaeus as involved in benevolent ministry through his giving. Let’s address both of these in view of the context:

And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. 2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich. 3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. 4 And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way. 5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house. 6 And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully. 7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner. 8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. 9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. – Luke 19:1-10

Now, the obvious question before us is this: Did Jesus engage in the Social Gospel of salvation via benevolent outreach? Hardly! Notice, Jesus did not feed, clothe, or even heal Zacchaeus of anything. All he did was invite himself to Zacchaeus’ home for a meal. If anything, it was Zacchaeus that ministered to the needs of Jesus! This can hardly build a case for the Social Gospel.

Concerning the second option – i.e. Zacchaeus engaged in the Social Gospel through his giving – Is even more preposterous. Zacchaeus was only retuning what he had stolen from others – nothing more and nothing less. His giving was connected directly to his repentance not any so-called “bridge-building”.

What our friend Bill, and other Social Gospel-minded brethren seem to neglect is Paul’s clear message in 1Corinthians 1:18-25

“18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

Unable to reconcile his views with the Scriptures, Bill has engaged in a series of baseless anathemas directed to me in personal email. I have requested that he post these disqualifications to the original thread – something that he seems to be unwilling to do. If he does not apologize and continues to send me hate mail, I will post every single one of his emails for your prudent knowledgeable consideration.

I call on all my conservative-minded brethren to come to this forum and discuss this issue at length. If anyone ought to be concerned about the inroads the Social Gospel has gained in our midst, it is they.

-- Anonymous, April 29, 2002

Since Phil has decided to make my private comments to him public, I am going to give you the whole text of my emails to him and then later my rebuttal to his response to me, in which I took offense at his tone and attitude.

My response #1: Phil;

I wrote a long reply to you and decided to ditch it. Your response to me is a real piece of work. I will not dignify your idiocy, hypocrisy, arrogance and blatant judgementalness with a reply.

Read again, what I wrote with an open mind. Is that possible for you? Then read again what you wrote. In one section you told me off, for something that in another section you said YOU DO.

Read Romans 14 and see if you need to make an attitude adjustment.

Bill Umstetter

His response: Bill, I am sorry that you feel that way. In Christ, Philip Watkinson

My response to his lack of response:

I was truly wondering if you would right an apology or tell me you reread what you and I wrote. But all you can say is you are sorry that "I" feel that way. Then you have the gall to sign your letter, "in Christ." I doubt Christ's response would come anywhere near how you wrote to me in your response. Hence, I in fact do Question your Christianity. It smacks of pharisaical religiosity.

As I said sir, read Romans 14 and see if you erred in how you handled my initial response to your post. Christians reason with one another, they don't denigrate them. And as I see it yes, I called your response 4 distinct words that applied to the attitude and tone of your post.

This is truly what pains me about Christianity. There are so many who think their way is so right that they can offend and hurt or criticize anyone in the name of Christ as though they have a special anointing. If you call that "preaching the gospel" you really have no clue about how many you push away with that attitude.

I do not advocate a "Social Gospel." However, look at the life of Jesus, did he not make a habit of eating with "sinners?" Didn't he make efforts to help people? Didn't the apostles set up a plan for taking care of the widows and orphans? Didn't the first century Christians, sell their possessions and give to all as had need? So if you call it "Social Gospel," sorry, I find it a part of sowing the seeds of the gospel.

If anything, the "gospel club" you used on me, tends to dominate people. If anything in this world, if that is your view of Christianity and I was a non Christian, it would definitely be another brick in the wall for my rejection of the same. As Gandhi said, I would be a Christian if it weren't for Christians. Think about it.

___________________

I will admit that my emotions in terms of anger, may have poured out more so than they should and therefore I apologize for my anger. My next post will disect Phil's rebuttal to my reply.

-- Anonymous, April 29, 2002

“Since Phil has decided to make my private comments to him public, I am going to give you the whole text of my emails to him and then later my rebuttal to his response to me, in which I took offense at his tone and attitude.” Just for the record, I never actually posted our private correspondence as Bill has done. I did send a copy of our emails to the moderator and two or three other regulars for their wise counsel, but they never answered – but apparently my ultimatum produced the desired effect. Nevertheless, I celebrate Bill’s apparent desire to be as transparent as possible in this discussion and I look forward to his honest rebuttal to my previous refutation.

In response to Bill's assertion: “I do not advocate a "Social Gospel." However, look at the life of Jesus, did he not make a habit of eating with "sinners?" Didn't he make efforts to help people? Didn't the apostles set up a plan for taking care of the widows and orphans? Didn't the first century Christians, sell their possessions and give to all as had need? So if you call it "Social Gospel," sorry, I find it a part of sowing the seeds of the gospel.”

I never even came close to inferring that helping others in Christian love is necessarily a Social Gospel. I quoted Galatians 6:10 which clearly establishes the PRIORITY for benevolent ministry – namely, it is to be done through the framework of the local church and it is to tend to needs of the brethren FIRST and FOREMOST. Jesus’ eating with sinners was not benevolence – not at least in the sense that we use it today. Did Jesus help people? In fact He did, but the Bible is quite clear as to where the priorities of Jesus were: “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” - Matthew 4:4 “33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” - John 6:33-69 In its most belligerent form, the Social Gospel embraces an entirely different paradigm. Its goal is not evangelize the lost through the clear Biblical preaching of the true Gospel, but to obtain a form of social justice as an end in itself. Under this model, the Church is viewed as the great divine social equalizer that will eventually bring about a paradise of equality in the world before the return of Christ (for those who still believe in a litteral visible return of Christ). Yet, the Social Gospel takes on many different forms – some obviously more moderate than others. For certain Christian Church people who identify with some or all aspects of the Social Gospel, true doctrine takes a back seat to an agenda of institutional benevolence. This is clearly the case with AMOR ministries, as presented by Gayla in the recorded message cited above. Maybe a complete transcript of the audio would be helpful.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

First, Phil if you had looked at what I wrote for what I said and not what you thought I said, you would see we agree so much more than disagree.

Following are my rebuttal to Phil's first response then on anther post is my response to his second response.

The beginning Phil writes:

Dear Bill,

I appreciate “deep thought” wherever I can find it. I also agree that we need to maintain a balanced perspective and I apologize if I have come across as being unbalanced. My objective was to underscore an all-important issue that has the potential of seriously undermining the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, allow me to respond to your post in the order in which you gave your comments. BU: It was appreciated how you started this letter. I thought we would have a good discussion on this important issue as it relates to the gospel.

You state: “James said what good is it if you tell a person to be warm and well fed and do nothing.” R: You have misquoted James on this point. He is very clear when he says: “If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?” This is entirely consistent with Paul’s instruction in Galatians 6:10 “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” What the Social Gospel wants to do is turn these priorities upside down, tending the physical needs of the non-believers while totally ignoring the needs of the brethren. Furthermore, they foolishly believe that by feeding the poor that they will win them to Christ. This is not only naive at best, it just doesn’t work in the long run – trust me. Jesus said: “For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.” – Matt. 26:11 It was He (not me) who gave us the order of priorities for benevolent ministry: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” – Matt. 6:33 BU: Phil I don’t know what you read into my reply, but what is the difference between what I wrote that James said: what good is it if you tell a person to be warm and well fed and do nothing and what you quote: And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

These two statements are identical in meaning. So WHERE and HOW did I misquote James? I was stating the issue that he placed an importance on meeting the physical need. In no way did I say make the physical of first priority and importance. My issue was that we cannot neglect this area. So did YOU misunderstand James?

You state: “The world sees us as "organized religion" and rejects us.” R: Yes, the world does often see Christianity as organized religion, but it has been precisely the Social Gospel that has contributed the most to that perception. In Mexico, for example, non-believers often see the help that the “gringos” give as just a ploy to buy their religious loyalty. Throwing money at the problem is not going to solve anything. Oh, they’ll go along with it as long as they get something out of it, but I seriously challenge anyone to follow up on these so-called conversions using the Social Gospel and prove that these people have been truly converted to the Lord. BU: My issue with your illustration is two fold, one you are saying that I stand for something which I never said I did. Second, even here with those who beg, I don’t freely give out just because they beg. I told you from the start, I SEE BOTH SIDES of the issue. The gospel MUST be preached, but ministry CANNOT be neglected.

You state: “Often they know nothing of our plea to restore the church of Christ to the ways of the first century church. They see a building and scoff.” R: Of course they don’t know of our plea to restore NT Christianity, because the resources that should be used to send evangelists to the field, are being used to fund orphanages, clinics, rehab centers, etc. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with these programs in themselves (specially in countries where they become the only open door of opportunity to do evangelism), but they have become an end instead of the means. As an example, allow me to share just one experience we have had on the mission field. During the late 70’s and early 80’s, the children’s home the CMME founded was using more than 90% of the Mission’s budget. This is one of the reasons why we decided to cut it loose – it has been in independent ministry since. But even in its present state, the children’s home consumes many times over the amount of resources that are spent on evangelism in the area. I challenge anyone to produce proof that this “ministry” is an efficient way of producing converts to Christ. On the other hand, if we took those same resources and invested them in evangelism, maybe less women would have to put their neglected children in institutional care and could be re-integrated into society via the local Body of Christ. Let me propose a different approach – a Biblical plan. Let’s invest in a large meeting place (that we will call an “evangelistic center” for now) and equip it to reach out to those in need among the many being saved through the Gospel. You know, many who come to Christ in Mexico suddenly find themselves disinherited and without a steady source of income. Let’s tend to their needs first, and then reach out to the non-believers through a combination of evangelism and benevolence. How does that sound? BU: First, I agree with your first paragraph in total. YOU are RIGHT. But your second paragraph in my eyes, is no where near biblical. Where do you see the church of the NT investing in a large meeting place (evangelistic center)? They went to where the people were and taught. IN the temple courts, along the roads, and especially in the households (the principle of OIKOS). But I add this, your next to last statement is exactly that which I was trying to point out to you, and notice, I was no where near trying to be rude to you but share with you from my heart. We must find balance and yes the combination of evangelism and benevolence I believe is not only right but demonstrated in scripture.

You state: “Churches are built on how the church is willing to minister to its community.” R: NO! The Church is built on the foundations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” – Rom. 10:14-17 You have been lending an ear to the church-growth and missiology gurus for much to long, Bill. BU: Let us be clear, the church IS built on Christ. But let us do this, let us go to the park, and you set up a pulpit and I set up an ice cream social with a devotional time. Who do you think will sow the most seeds that will come to fruition? You remember, Jesus turned the water into wine with out a sermon. He did not preach at the wedding, he just did the miracle. Now what if I provided beverages at weddings in the name of Jesus. IT would be my ministry. In light of Romans 14, you can disagree, you don’t have to like what I do, but if I am not doing anything wrong, you have no right to condemn me. Notwitshsatnding the necessity to preach the gospel, but sometimes you have to get the hearers ready. Remember how many times Jesus did something to get the hearers ready, like feed the mulitudes on mulitple occasions.

You state: “IF you look at the pattern of Matthew 25:19, it says as you go into the world, disciple the ethnics. That means do what it takes to bring people to discipleship so they can be saved.” R: NO, Bill. It does not mean “do what it takes to bring people to discipleship”. Words mean things and Matt. 25:19 means what it says: “After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.” J You are probably referring to chapter 28, and verse 19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” In context, Christ clearly states what he means by what he says: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (v. 20) It is the teaching that must both precede and follow after conversion. You state: “We often want to save them first and then make little or no attempt to disciple them. So the church must get this priority straight first.” BU: My apologies for the typo, yes I meant chap. 28. I stand by what I said. IF Christ tells us to make disciples, then we should do what ever it takes to make disciples. Do the commands of Christ mean anything LESS??? In addition I agree that teaching comes after salvation AS WELL. But we are to disciple them first and our brotherhood has a poor record of discipling period. We are more concerned about getting people in the baptistry. That is wrong. IF we disciple, they want Christ we don’t have to coerce for a decision. R: As is clear from the Great Commission, discipleship comes before and after conversion. The Bible does not compartmentalize discipleship like we have done today. You state: “How do we disciple? I ask this because I have found that for me, making disciples requires bridgebuilding. Sometimes it requires food or clothing or shelter, but above all, it requires time.” R: The obvious question is, how much “bridge-building”? How much food, clothing, and/ or shelter? For how long? The answer in reality is quite often that the newcomers via the Social Gospel only remain as long as their is something in it for them and not a minute longer. BU: The obvious answer is what ever it takes. Fruit ripens at its own pace. Remember the parable of the seed. IF we sow, we don’t know how long it takes for seed to produce fruit. And again, I am talking about nurturing and building a person to the point where they can make disciples. I am bringing them to Jesus with the Word of God, not with food or clothes, but I use food or clothes or outings to build the bridge of trust so that they WILL listen to me. What good is it to preach when the hearers are not prepared to listen. You can see that on some Sunday mornings in some churches, the music and other parts of the service are not so well done, so many of the hearers attention is already compromised and it takes quality sermons to bring them back. A poor sermon often produces ZZZZ.

You state: “This is not a social gospel. IT is also not the extreme to which LHCC seems to take it.” R: Judge for yourself. I have only presented what Gayla Congdon has stated publicly. No reference was ever made to the policy of LHCC. BU: My apology here, I assumed facts presented by you were true, and I said “seems to take.” Therefore I WAS treading lightly based on what YOU said. You state: “In seeking first the kingdom of God, Jesus I believe is talking to believers, Jews who are caught up in their religiosity. They believed in God, now they had to seek first his kingdom. The lost, Jesus took time with them and yes, even ate with them. Does Zachaeus ring a bell?” R: Bill, you do dance wonderfully with the Scriptures. The context, my friend, the context! Matt. 6:25-34 Clearly states: “Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” The issue that Jesus is addressing is on of spiritual priorities over material ones. I don’t have the vaguest idea where you get your understanding of this passage from. You seem to have a strong tendency to read into the Word whatever you want it to say. BU: What are you reading into what I wrote Phil. Are you awake and in control of your faculties. What did I say wrong. Jesus WAS preaching to the Jews, for the sermon on the mount. Jews did have a belief in God. What is wrong with that? The sermon on the mount’s whole emphasis was to teach that Jesus was the new law giver and he was raising the bar for personal righteousness – hence seek first the kingdom of God. What is wrong with that rational – I was addressing the spiritual. I then went to Jesus attitude for the lost, the non believers, those he took time to build bridges with. So you see the double approach. Those who needed preaching GOT preaching and those who needed bridge building GOT bridge building. What is wrong here, you are attacking me and I don’t get it. You state: “One thing that I seem to get out of reading your post is that it sounds like you want people to become Christians and you want to use the gospel like a club.” R: Good grief Bill! Give me a break why don’t you! You do not know you and me are not at all qualified to make such a preposterous characterization like this. I have helped and continue to help many an under-privileged soul with more than my share of giving. I have done this since I was a kid. Yet, I do not use benevolence as “club” to beat people into submission to the Gospel. BU: EXCUSE ME SIR, but you attacked me first. Yes I do not know you, but what I get out of what you are saying to me is that because I do not agree with you, I must be an idiot. That to be right, I must see things totally your way. That is how YOU come across to me.

You state: “You can't force submission to Christ, and understand that fruit ripens at its own pace. We are NOT required to save souls, that is God's job.” R: Now that has to be about the most pitiful argument I have ever heard. Of course nobody can be forced into submission to Christ, but those who preach the Social Gospel are the ones that would have us believe otherwise. They think they can force people into the kingdom of God (as they conceive it) through their benevolent ministry. As the second have of this statement, it sounds like a good Calvinist speaking. If we do not have any part in bringing people to Christ, why evangelize at all? Let God take care of it! In fact, why even bother with benevolence if God can convert people without our help? True conversion never happens without some form of contact with God’s Holy Word. True, the Holy Spirit does interact directly with an individual, but He works to bring that individual into a relationship to God through the knowledge of his will as revealed in the Scriptures. BU: Sir, you admit that nobody can be forced into submission, therefore from your own argument the logical conclusion is that people take time to be converted. Therefore you condemn me for what you also believe. Now, where did Calvinism come in sir. You call my argument pitiful yet your response is bizarre and has no bearing on what I said. I am merely pointing out that people have a FREE WILL, don’t you agree? Therefore some wills have a stronger resistance to God. Can’t you agree with that?

You state: “We are to plant seed. The over zealous over heaping social churches that want to entertain and provide frills, I believe are over doing it.” R: Why? What is your criterion? BU: Criterion for what??? I thought I was stating a fact, that we sow the seeds of the gospel and I thought I was agreeing with you about churches that provide a social club atmosphere.

You State: But it is not a blanket indictment of the many that use ministry to encourage people to see that there is a true church that cares.” R: Cares for what? There physical needs above their spiritual needs? That is Maslow’s Gospel. BU: Phil you seem to read into what is written only that I do not agree with you totally. Therefore you represent me to say things that I never said. I never supported the concept of the “Maslow Gospel” I said I supported parts on both sides of the issue. Luke said that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and Man. Can’t you grasp that I meant that our care was about the whole person, spiritually and physically?

You state: “When Christianity is demonstrated it cannot produce merely a "rice Christian." It is a seed planted, only God knows what fruit it will produce.” R: In all the NT, it is the Gospel that is the seed, not benevolence. BU: How sad that you miss this point. The gospel seed is planted when Christians and churches demonstrate their faith, ie preaching, benevolence, intentional ministry. You state: “Yes it is sad that so many will parish. Yet it is their own freewill that leads them down the path.” R: True, but you have just contradicted a previous statement about God doing all the work. If God does the converting, that it is He that must be blamed for not having brought the non-believer to a saving knowledge of His Son. In fact, it is us who are guilty of not giving a clear presentation of the Gospel. Furthermore. The worldly lifestyle of most Christians in America sends a mixed signal that neutralizes any “seed” the Social Gospel might plant. BU: It is amazing, but you totally misconstrued and misrepresented what I said. We sow the seed. Can we save? The person must respond, they have the freewill. IT is God who saves. So I said earlier we are called to plant seed and we are not called to save. Therefore God is the one who saves. And I am sorry to redigress this with you, but God DOES all the work. (IF we in fact work one minutia for our salvation, eph 2 is and we are NOT saved by grace.) We cannot work to earn our salvation. Last time I read we are saved by grace. God makes us righteous. Therefore, we plant the seed, the hearer responds, and God saves. Where did I ever deny that or write differently than that. Your apology will be accepted. You state: “What is being done at these over zealous churches is not turning them away from Christ, as they are already there. So to me, if that kind of ministry can take 2 out 10 lost souls and make them disciples as opposed to 10 out of 10 wondering from soup kitchen to alley way to divorce courts etc and never finding Christ, I'll take the former.” R: Maybe, but are we winning them to Christ or the Social Gospel? BU: Again you have missed my point. IF a person is lost and they accept the social gospel only, they are still lost. Is that clear enough for you Phil? As I said all along, I see your point of view and mostly agree with it. I just see value in ministry along with preaching. You have NO RIGHT to condemn me or rip me as you have because you disagree. In my response to you earlier to check out Romans 14, you said you will stick to Romans 16:17. How sad, my view is inclusive of your view, however your view is that it is your way only or you’re not my brother.

AS I said before, this attitude of yours is what sends so many away from Christianity. I have heard so many hurt by judgmental people. How many times have you heard of a person filled with grace love and compassion having made people so hurt and angry they leave a church. In my lifetime not once. But I have heard and seen so many people with attitudes like yours that are so full of judgement and so quick to criticize and rip apart that have chased people away. With the exception of being attacked, my errors are usually on the side of grace. Again Phil, your apology will be accepted, I have given mine.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

Brothers,

I apologize for my depth of verbage. But in my defence, it is in fact my defence to Phil's words, and I have necessity to write them.

Phil;

Here is my response to your last posting: My quote: “In seeking first the kingdom of God, Jesus I believe is talking to believers, Jews who are caught up in their religiosity. They believed in God, now they had to seek first his kingdom. The lost, Jesus took time with them and yes, even ate with them. Does Zachaeus ring a bell?” Your response: Although I responded to the first half of this statement, I missed the second half that makes reference to Zacchaeus. I am not quite sure what bill intended to prove with this, but I believe that it’s safe to assume that he sees Jesus reaching out in benevolent ministry to Zacchaeus as a pre-evangelism act of bridge building. The other possibility is that he sees Zacchaeus as involved in benevolent ministry through his giving. Let’s address both of these in view of the context: BU: What is in your head sir? I only prove one issue that Jesus took time to build a bridge with someone. That time proved to be fruitful and similar acts of ministry by us, can produce similar results. Did Jesus teach Zacchaeus or did he just eat and all of a sudden he had a change of heart in response to Jesus mere presence. The act of care which is specific coupled with a time of teaching which must be inferred brought about Zacchaeus change of heart. You said: Now, the obvious question before us is this: Did Jesus engage in the Social Gospel of salvation via benevolent outreach? Hardly! Notice, Jesus did not feed, clothe, or even heal Zacchaeus of anything. All he did was invite himself to Zacchaeus’ home for a meal. If anything, it was Zacchaeus that ministered to the needs of Jesus! This can hardly build a case for the Social Gospel. Concerning the second option – i.e. Zacchaeus engaged in the Social Gospel through his giving – Is even more preposterous. Zacchaeus was only retuning what he had stolen from others – nothing more and nothing less. His giving was connected directly to his repentance not any so-called “bridge-building”. BU: Phil you are so blind to your position that you make up concepts that I NEVER espoused and issues that you miss. For instance, I never claimed a social gospel, I claimed ministry, I claimed a time of bridge building AND teaching. And though the verse does not specifically say he repented., I AGREE with you that he did. But it would never have happened if Jesus had never taken the time for him, ie. Bridge building.

You say: What our friend Bill, and other Social Gospel-minded brethren seem to neglect is Paul’s clear message in 1Corinthians 1:18-25 BU: What about Matthew 10:42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.” Is that not social, is that not benevolence commended by Jesus? So get off your high and mighty routine. IT is not an either / or proposition. I have been saying this all along. It is both. The body of Christ has room for both the preaching and the benevolence, not one extent to ignore the other. You say: Unable to reconcile his views with the Scriptures, Bill has engaged in a series of baseless anathemas directed to me in personal email. I have requested that he post these disqualifications to the original thread – something that he seems to be unwilling to do. If he does not apologize and continues to send me hate mail, I will post every single one of his emails for your prudent knowledgeable consideration. I call on all my conservative-minded brethren to come to this forum and discuss this issue at length. If anyone ought to be concerned about the inroads the Social Gospel has gained in our midst, it is they. BU: Phil, again, I apologize for my temper getting the best of me in my remarks. Your replies have stung mightily and for no good reason. I have indeed reconciled my views with scripture. Be clear as to what my views are sir and quit contorting them. AS for hate mail, you must be paranoid, delusional or an alarmist. I never once said I hate you, or I want you to die. I said your writing smacked of pharisaical religiosity. You know the Pharisees of the bible were so judgmental that their way is right. I have given you plenty of examples that my way accepts your way and includes other biblical patterns. I said your tone was arrogant and hypocritical. I did not say you were. And yes I did question your Christianity, but I did not say you were not a Christian. But your attitude speaks volumes. Now I have apologized and explained my POV. So one more time, I say, I will accept your apology.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

Bill,

Spare us all the exhaustive repetition of each other’s arguments, please!

Now, to respond to the specific rebuttals:

Bill:“What is the difference between what I wrote that James said: what good is it if you tell a person to be warm and well fed and do nothing and what you quote: And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?”

Phil: Bill, if you had taken the time to read instead of react, you would have seen it. The words, “brother or sister”, are the difference. Once again, you have misquoted me big time. Furthermore, you misquote the Scriptures. It is the needs of the brethren that we are to address first and foremost, then we can go ahead and minister compassion on the non-believers in general. The reality of this is that many in our churches have gotten it exactly backwards.

Bill: “My issue with your illustration is two fold, one you are saying that I stand for something which I never said I did. Second, even here with those who beg, I don’t freely give out just because they beg. I told you from the start, I SEE BOTH SIDES of the issue. The gospel MUST be preached, but ministry CANNOT be neglected.”

Phil: Bill, you need to fix something in your Word Processor. The quotation marks are messed up. Anyway, that you do not see both sides of the issue is quite evident in your reactions. In any case, you seem to confuse the ministry of the Word with the “ministry” of benevolence or compassion. Furthermore, compassion and benevolence never converted anyone to Christ: “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man” - John 2:23-25 When we minister compassion to non-believers, it is not for the purpose of conversion, for that would be extortion. The purpose of compassion is stated in Scripture thusly: “11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; 12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” - 1Peter 2:11,12

“8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: 9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. 10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.” Romans 15:8-13 “16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 5:16

So there we have it in a nutshell. The purpose for our good works before man is that the non-believers may glorify God. In other words, so that they will not have any excuse for not having repented of their sin, confessing Jesus as Lord.

Bill: “First, I agree with your first paragraph in total. YOU are RIGHT. But your second paragraph in my eyes, is no where near biblical. Where do you see the church of the NT investing in a large meeting place (evangelistic center)? They went to where the people were and taught. IN the temple courts, along the roads, and especially in the households (the principle of OIKOS). But I add this, your next to last statement is exactly that which I was trying to point out to you, and notice, I was no where near trying to be rude to you but share with you from my heart. We must find balance and yes the combination of evangelism and benevolence I believe is not only right but demonstrated in scripture.” Phil: Ok, so we wont invest in a large meeting place for evangelistic purposes – whatever. I’m curious Bill, where is it that you said you meet on Sundays? Bill: Let us be clear, the church IS built on Christ. But let us do this, let us go to the park, and you set up a pulpit and I set up an ice cream social with a devotional time. Who do you think will sow the most seeds that will come to fruition? You remember, Jesus turned the water into wine with out a sermon. He did not preach at the wedding, he just did the miracle. Now what if I provided beverages at weddings in the name of Jesus. IT would be my ministry. In light of Romans 14, you can disagree, you don’t have to like what I do, but if I am not doing anything wrong, you have no right to condemn me. Notwitshsatnding the necessity to preach the gospel, but sometimes you have to get the hearers ready. Remember how many times Jesus did something to get the hearers ready, like feed the mulitudes on mulitple occasions. Phil: Good grief Bill! Lighten up a little! No one has condemned you for your methods of reaching the lost (whatever they are). If anyone has condemned anyone, you have condemned me with no uncertain terms in a previous posting. You said you questioned my Christianity. Those were your words not mine. I will say this much, I have won many lost to Christ without ever handing out an ice cream cone. I did hand out a lot of “ice cream cones” after they came to Christ though. Bill: “My apologies for the typo, yes I meant chap. 28. I stand by what I said. IF Christ tells us to make disciples, then we should do what ever it takes to make disciples. Do the commands of Christ mean anything LESS??? In addition I agree that teaching comes after salvation AS WELL. But we are to disciple them first and our brotherhood has a poor record of discipling period. We are more concerned about getting people in the baptistry. That is wrong. IF we disciple, they want Christ we don’t have to coerce for a decision.” Phil: I agree that we have a rather poor record of discipling people, but I believe that that is improving a great deal. Yet, you seem to equate discipling with ministering compassion. The ministry of compassion is not even mentioned in the passage. Neither does it say “do whatever it takes to make disciples”. If anyone is coercing people into a decision for Christ, it is the Social Gospel people. Bill: “The obvious answer is what ever it takes. Fruit ripens at its own pace. Remember the parable of the seed. IF we sow, we don’t know how long it takes for seed to produce fruit. And again, I am talking about nurturing and building a person to the point where they can make disciples. I am bringing them to Jesus with the Word of God, not with food or clothes, but I use food or clothes or outings to build the bridge of trust so that they WILL listen to me. What good is it to preach when the hearers are not prepared to listen. You can see that on some Sunday mornings in some churches, the music and other parts of the service are not so well done, so many of the hearers attention is already compromised and it takes quality sermons to bring them back. A poor sermon often produces ZZZZ.” Phil: What if the person dies well-fed but on his way to Hell? The attention-span problem is a rather unique American issue. If you were to go to Cuba today, the attention span of the people there far surpasses that of the church folk in the US. I was not called to entertain – I was called to preach the good news so that the lost might become saved. Entertainment is good, in the circus or theater, or whatever. But the church ought to be a different story. Bill: “BU: My apology here, I assumed facts presented by you were true, and I said “seems to take.” Therefore I WAS treading lightly based on what YOU said” Phil: Do I sense a false apology here? My original statements were in fact true. If anything, you have taken them completely out of context and misquoted them as you do with the Scriptures as well. Bill: BU: “What are you reading into what I wrote Phil. Are you awake and in control of your faculties. What did I say wrong. Jesus WAS preaching to the Jews, for the sermon on the mount. Jews did have a belief in God. What is wrong with that? The sermon on the mount’s whole emphasis was to teach that Jesus was the new law giver and he was raising the bar for personal righteousness – hence seek first the kingdom of God. What is wrong with that rational – I was addressing the spiritual. I then went to Jesus attitude for the lost, the non believers, those he took time to build bridges with. So you see the double approach. Those who needed preaching GOT preaching and those who needed bridge building GOT bridge building. What is wrong here, you are attacking me and I don’t get it.” Phil: I thought it was a false apology – now I know. The passage says what it says. If you “don’t get it” I can’t imagine why. Bill: “BU: EXCUSE ME SIR, but you attacked me first. Yes I do not know you, but what I get out of what you are saying to me is that because I do not agree with you, I must be an idiot. That to be right, I must see things totally your way. That is how YOU come across to me.” Phil: Bill, no one has attacked you. You don’t need my help, you seem to be able to stumble all of yourself quite well on your own. But since you mentioned it, is there any view that is right Bill? It’s funny – those who shout “tolerance” the most are quite often the most intolerant when it comes to other points of view. I could just as easily direct your accusations against you if I wanted to, but then you would accuse me of “attacking” you, so I wont. Bill: “Sir, you admit that nobody can be forced into submission, therefore from your own argument the logical conclusion is that people take time to be converted. Therefore you condemn me for what you also believe. Now, where did Calvinism come in sir. You call my argument pitiful yet your response is bizarre and has no bearing on what I said. I am merely pointing out that people have a FREE WILL, don’t you agree? Therefore some wills have a stronger resistance to God. Can’t you agree with that?” Phil: I guess you do not consider me your brother in Christ anymore Bill, ‘cause you keep calling me “Sir”. To my knowledge the king or queen of England has never knighted me as “Sir” Philip Watkinson. My response is “bizarre”, at least in your mind. I have already addressed this issue at the beginning of this post. As to the Calvinism in your speech, you have stated it quite well yourself: “We are NOT required to save souls, that is God's job” If it is “God’s job”, then for Heaven’s sake let’s keep our hands out of it! (I say this tongue in cheek of course). Bill: “Criterion for what??? I thought I was stating a fact, that we sow the seeds of the gospel and I thought I was agreeing with you about churches that provide a social club atmosphere.” Phil: Your criterion for deciding what is a “social club atmosphere” and what is “bridge-building” Bill: “Phil you seem to read into what is written only that I do not agree with you totally. Therefore you represent me to say things that I never said. I never supported the concept of the “Maslow Gospel” I said I supported parts on both sides of the issue. Luke said that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and Man. Can’t you grasp that I meant that our care was about the whole person, spiritually and physically?” Phil: Bill, you have misrepresented what I said. I never said that you supported the Maslow Gospel or even the Social Gospel for that matter. Re-read the entire thread and show me where I have directly accused you of either. Now, concerning your statement “Can’t you grasp that I meant that our care was about the whole person, spiritually and physically?”, I need to know in what order of priority – which is the crux of this whole discussion anyway. Bill: “How sad that you miss this point. The gospel seed is planted when Christians and churches demonstrate their faith, ie preaching, benevolence, intentional ministry.” Phil: No Bill, you are wrong! The Gospel seed is the Gospel – PERIOD! Bill: “It is amazing, but you totally misconstrued and misrepresented what I said. We sow the seed. Can we save? The person must respond, they have the freewill. IT is God who saves. So I said earlier we are called to plant seed and we are not called to save. Therefore God is the one who saves. And I am sorry to redigress this with you, but God DOES all the work. (IF we in fact work one minutia for our salvation, eph 2 is and we are NOT saved by grace.) We cannot work to earn our salvation. Last time I read we are saved by grace. God makes us righteous. Therefore, we plant the seed, the hearer responds, and God saves. Where did I ever deny that or write differently than that. Your apology will be accepted.” Phil: Bill, if our problem is one of semantics, I apologize. Yes, God does save us by grace without our works (and Paul specifically means works of the law in Romans). But does “God [do] all the work”? If by “ work” you mean irresistible grace than we must part ways, for that is pure Calvinism. Bill: “Again you have missed my point. IF a person is lost and they accept the social gospel only, they are still lost. Is that clear enough for you Phil? As I said all along, I see your point of view and mostly agree with it. I just see value in ministry along with preaching. You have NO RIGHT to condemn me or rip me as you have because you disagree. In my response to you earlier to check out Romans 14, you said you will stick to Romans 16:17. How sad, my view is inclusive of your view, however your view is that it is your way only or you’re not my brother. As I said before, this attitude of yours is what sends so many away from Christianity. I have heard so many hurt by judgmental people. How many times have you heard of a person filled with grace love and compassion having made people so hurt and angry they leave a church. In my lifetime not once. But I have heard and seen so many people with attitudes like yours that are so full of judgement and so quick to criticize and rip apart that have chased people away. With the exception of being attacked, my errors are usually on the side of grace. Again Phil, your apology will be accepted, I have given mine.” Phil: Bill, never have I even come close to attempting to push my views on you or anyone else. Furthermore, that would be impossible without a serious brainwashing process. And as for condemning anyone, you have condemned yourself Bill: “21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” –Matthew 5:22-22 Bill: “Brothers, I apologize for my depth of verbage. But in my defence, it is in fact my defence to Phil's words, and I have necessity to write them. “ Phil: Don’t apologize to them Bill. Your inflammatory attack was on me not them. Let me ask a direct question Bill: am I, or am I not your brother in Christ? YES or NO? Bill: “What is in your head sir? I only prove one issue that Jesus took time to build a bridge with someone. That time proved to be fruitful and similar acts of ministry by us, can produce similar results. Did Jesus teach Zacchaeus or did he just eat and all of a sudden he had a change of heart in response to Jesus mere presence. The act of care which is specific coupled with a time of teaching which must be inferred brought about Zacchaeus change of heart.” Phil: Time Bill? All it took was less than 24 hours. Bill: “Phil you are so blind to your position that you make up concepts that I NEVER espoused and issues that you miss. For instance, I never claimed a social gospel, I claimed ministry, I claimed a time of bridge building AND teaching. And though the verse does not specifically say he repented., I AGREE with you that he did. But it would never have happened if Jesus had never taken the time for him, ie. Bridge building.” Phil: Blind Bill? Now that isn’t very kind is it. Call it what you may, “Social Gospel”, “bridge-building”, “ministry”, or whatever. You seem to equate the preaching of the Gospel with benevolence and compassion and that is not Biblical. BU: What about Matthew 10:42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.” Is that not social, is that not benevolence commended by Jesus? So get off your high and mighty routine. IT is not an either / or proposition. I have been saying this all along. It is both. The body of Christ has room for both the preaching and the benevolence, not one extent to ignore the other. Phil: “High and mighty” routine Bill? Now that isn’t very kind is it. Jesus clearly says “because he is my disciple”. Furthermore, the crux of this passage in Matthew 10:42 is not conversion but true ministry of compassion. Yes, it is not an either/or proposition, but the Body of Christ does not have room for both preaching and benevolence when benevolence takes precedence over preaching as it does in the socialized Gospel. Bill: “Phil, again, I apologize for my temper getting the best of me in my remarks. Your replies have stung mightily and for no good reason. I have indeed reconciled my views with scripture. Be clear as to what my views are sir and quit contorting them. AS for hate mail, you must be paranoid, delusional or an alarmist. I never once said I hate you, or I want you to die. I said your writing smacked of pharisaical religiosity. You know the Pharisees of the bible were so judgmental that their way is right. I have given you plenty of examples that my way accepts your way and includes other biblical patterns. I said your tone was arrogant and hypocritical. I did not say you were. And yes I did question your Christianity, but I did not say you were not a Christian. But your attitude speaks volumes. Now I have apologized and explained my POV. So one more time, I say, I will accept your apology.” Phil: Don’t apologize in vain Bill. The only sting you have felt is that of the truth, not of anyone of my arguments. If you have reconciled your views with Scripture, that’s fine with me, but don’t I have the equal right to express mine? I suppose I could have made my comments without directing them to you, but since you were the one presenting the opposite viewpoint I thought that it was safe to assume that you intended a full honest discussion of each other’s opinions. Like I said, if the issue is one of semantics, I sincerely apologize. My intention never was two second-guess your motives. Yes, you did not say that you wanted me dead, but you called me just about everything else in the book. For those reading this thread, I suspect that the distinction you have made will seem rather superficial and childish.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2002

Phil;

First and foremost, I apologize to you for my strong comments and words written in anger.

I have tried to reply to your post, I find I cannot for several reasons, after 3 hours of working on writing back to you, our dicussion just is out of order. Things are written that are not good, issues are ignored, some issues become circular.

My position is this:

1 - You are my brother in christ. Like any family there are squabbles and that in no way removes a member of the family 2 - I believe that each person must respond to the gospel, that we in fact have a free will, and upon our response, God saves. (Just like in refuting the theology that says baptism is a work, sorry we do not work, it is god who does the work). 3 - I believe that the preaching of the gospel is foremost in sowing the seed. 4 - However due to the many examples in the Bible of benevolence, bridgebuilding and such, then I see these as a part of doing the work of bringing people to Jesus. 5 - I disavow of any teaching that says the only way or even most important way to bring people to Christ is through parties, games, food, etc. ad nauseum. 6 - I beleive that making disciples is of such importance, that I have adopted an attitude that I must do what ever it takes to help people to be the disciple that God calls them to be.

Phil, I am finished with this thread. I will not respond to it any more. Just know that even though we disagreed, I am deeply sorry for my attitude to you.

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2002

Dear Bill,

I accept your apologies and I shall pray for your full success in whatever endeavor to do for the Lord.

It seems that our differences may have been more of a matter of semantics than anything else.

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2002