“Dear Mr. Boh…” that is an appropriate salutation for my close buddy, thought Mr. Boh’s friend.
You see, Mr. Boh(emian) lives in Europe where he is just discovering the person of Jesus; so he is looking at the church, familiar to you and me, from a fresh perspective.
Mr. Boh’s friend has gone on journey to the land of ecclesiastic plenty where things are not necessarily wrong, but often quite different from that to which he is accustomed. Friend of Boh continues his post card…
“… one thing that has struck me is that believers here in the land of ecclesiastic plenty talk about grace as good news, but the people around them perceive them as being harsh, bellicose and choleric. Why is this?
So in order to understand some of these dynamics, I picked up a book called, They Like Jesus but Not the Church. The author, Dan Kimball, writes about common (mis)perceptions of the church, “The church is an organized religion with a political agenda” and “is judgmental and negative,” among other things.
I mean really Mr. Boh, did the church family that you are now part of tell you that you needed to adopt a particular political orientation in order to follow Christ?!
It will reassure you that I recently saw on the front board of an evangelical church “Pray for President Obama — 1 Timothy 2:1-4”
[I urge you, first of all, to pray for all people. Ask God to help them; intercede on their behalf, and give thanks for them. Pray this way for kings and all who are in authority so that we can live peaceful and quiet lives marked by godliness and dignity. This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to understand the truth.]
So I guess at least some evangelicals are asking God to give the president wisdom and attempting to be at peace with him, a democrat (that is the leftist party here in the land of ecclesiastic plenty).
In his book, Kimball points out that evangelicals are known for what they are against rather than what they stand for. Even if this is a stereotype that does not at all represent what you and I believe or do, “when part of us misrepresents Jesus, we are all misrepresented. If part of us is misunderstood, we all are misunderstood,” he explains.
It seems to me that Paul and the other writers of the New Testament were very concerned about ethics within the church, yet evangelicals quoted by the media seem to be attempting to impose Christian morality on unbelievers.
Mr. Boh, think about it, how can people who do not know Christ be expected to live according to Biblical standards when they lack the power of the Holy Spirit?
I think that there is the danger of attitudinal worldliness among some believers. I admit to having met believers who seem to have adopted both the convictions (that is okay) and acerbic attitudes (not okay) sometimes heard on national news networks.
Whatever one’s Christian conviction may be, should it not be accompanied by love and be gracious toward people who do not follow Christ, whatever their position or lifestyle may be currently? In this way they would have a living example of the message that we preach — purity, grace, love, reconciliation and peace.
After all, Paul instructed Timothy to: “Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they will learn the truth” (2 Timothy 2:25).
I guess what I am saying is that we believers want to present truth with an attitude… gentleness. An appropriate Christian approach is not presenting truth harshly or being graciously vapid, but sharing truth embodied in graciousness… "full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).
Well, Mr. Boh, I am out of room on this postcard. As I said before, there is much to think about in this strange land!
Your friend…"
4 comments:
Hi Paul . . .
I tried to comment on your previous article, but I guess my comments got lost in cyberspace. That article and this one touch on a lot of important issues, too numerous to comment on all of them.
I would ask, "Is there really a 'land of ecclesiastic plenty'?". Or, maybe is there a land of 'plentiful religious counterfeits' masquerading as 'churches'? Should this be an issue that Mr.Boh should think about?
Is not the assumption that there is a 'land of ecclesiastic plenty" the application of a metric itself? Should not those who are engaged in mission apply some kind of metric in order to evaluate the wisdom and effectiveness of their stewardship?
Agreeing with you about the attitude of gentleness, where and how should American Christians discuss their government and its leaders when they have serious disagreements or concerns? When we pray for the President, may it only be for wisdom and peace, or could it not also be for the conviction of his sin and for his salvation? And may we state this publicly, or is that not gentle?
Hi Keith,
Thanks for interacting. I won’t attempt to respond to all of your questions because some are obviously rhetorical, e.g. content of our prayers for the president. My emphasis on gentleness is to check attitudes with Scripture for a missional reason — Kimball says that evangelicals are perceived as having a political agenda and are judgmental and this perception is hurting the church’s testimony. Your questions might be best addressed to Don Shoemaker who has shown good balance and insight into these matters.
A description of the Klawitters’ application of 1 Timothy 2:1-4 might help. We asked a left-leaning friend not to belittle (not the same as discussing issues) then President Bush, while at our dinner table. And we would do the same with our right-leaning friends concerning the current president. We have no problem entering into spirited discussions and strongly disagreeing (for those from Latin cultures if the discussion is not lively it is boring and hardly worth having :-). That is not the same as animosity toward someone which is the impression, right or wrong, that some people apparently have of evangelicals. I think we can counter this impression, not with soppy-ness, but by being courteously strong-minded.
As for the land of ecclesiastic plenty, I am not trying to offend; I am being tongue in cheek. I can think of no one, however, who would argue with my assertion that there is a higher percentage of evangelicals and concentration of believing churches in the U.S.A. than in any country in Western Europe. Missiologists often discuss allocation of resources; our own mission has had discussions of this type and there was not unanimity as to how that should be done. Joshua project uses statistics to determine least-reached peoples and there is not unanimity as to where to draw lines or even how to do so. That is fine. The decision makers do what they believe is best before God, all things considered. I agree that quantification has its place and can be helpful. I have my own team do a statistical report every year. These realities do not negate my contention that some things defy quantification and that trying to do so can at times be counterproductive.
Hope that clarifies things a bit. Thanks for sparring!
Thanks Paul. Agreed. I agree that my old friend Don Shoemaker does very well in making accurate, gentle, and balanced presentations on issues. But, even he gets accused (falsely) of being narrow, or mean-spirited at times. I do think there is a time to defend each other against our culture, instead of agreeing with the culture that anyone who speaks differently than their viewpoint is automatically mean or narrow. That, of course, is not an excuse to behave in a less than gracious, gentle manner.
Agreed. Don is indeed a good example of biblical solidity and graciousness. And even when we are gracious we will at times be criticized. As Peter and Paul said, "Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Ro.12:17-18)"But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed." (1 Pt. 3:14)
Post a Comment