In Bible class last week, somebody asked about whether "we" (as in, the congregation as an organized entity) should be doing more good works to help people, be they Christian or non-Christian. She wondered if it mightn't be easier for people to hear the Gospel and come to faith if first their temporal needs are met. That is a standard line you hear from most missionaries. And she's right about the kindnesses we show to others not being contigent upon what they believe, but that these things are done for the sake of being kind and merciful and good to anyone, particularly to those who don't "deserve" it.
In the last couple of years, "acts of mercy" has become a popular new buzzword, frequently heard from the folks running our deaconess programs and synod's Human Care office. But there are a few things I don't understand.
1. If we say that people will be more willing to hear the Gospel if we first attend to their temporal needs, are we trusting in our good works to change their hearts instead of depending upon the Word of God to create faith in them?
2. Sometimes it almost sounds like good works are being promoted to intentionally entice people into the Church, rather than good works being the natural outgrowth of a lively faith.
3. So many people are already doing "acts of mercy" simply by changing their children's diapers, or taking their elderly grandparents to the doctor, or helping neighbors, or adopting an abandoned child, or working in hospice. But I've heard professors and synodical officials speak as though these mundane everyday acts "aren't enough" and we need to be doing different "bigger" acts of mercy.
4. If we institutionalize our "acts of mercy" through church programs and paid employees, is it easier for people to excuse themselves from actually getting involved in their neighbors' lives?
5. If we start programs (food pantry, English as a Second Language, homeless shelter, day care, etc), will it ever be enough? Of course, like Coral posted a while ago, we do what we can, and those small efforts matter a great deal to the ones who receive these temporal blessings. But we must also take care not to buy into the idea that these things are necessary to "get people to listen." If so, then churches will turn into social agencies, because we will never be able to do enough to solve all poverty and suffering. I think Jesus might've even said something about having the poor with us always. That's not to say Christians are callous to suffering, but that the Church's focus is on Jesus and not on social work.
6. Do we ever fall into the theology-of-glory trap of thinking that Christianity is primarily about having less suffering in this life?
7. Are these programs in our congregations being run entirely by willing volunteers, or is it possible that people are being guilt-tripped into maintaining these programs? Are we taking care that volunteers are never encouraged to consider "helping others" to be more important than the time they need to spend caring for their own families? Are young women encouraged to go into church work instead of into the holy estate of being wives and mothers?
8. In this synod, it is not common to hear the Gospel preached in all its sweetness; there's too much moralism preached. Furthermore, it is an exceedingly rare thing to hear the Law preached fully, with intent to kill the sinful flesh. If we can't get the basic message of Christianity preached rightly in our pulpits, it seems a dangerous thing to branch off from that into encouraging "acts of mercy." If we really believe the Law, and if we really trust the Gospel to be the power of God, and if it were really preached rightly, then wouldn't that Gospel capture hearts and change lives, and wouldn't "acts of mercy" just be abounding all over the place?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great thoughts, Susan. As always.
ReplyDeleteI'm not for "acts of mercy" as a means to get people to hear the gospel....I'm for acts of mercy because Christ commanded that we care for the poor, the hungry, those in need. To do so to those (as well as to our own children, parents, neighbors, etc.) is to do so for Christ.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't fall out of moral righteousness, it falls out of a healthy sacramentology. If Jesus feeds us His body and blood despite our desperate sinfulness, then we in turn should be going out and caring for those He loves with the love that He gave to us. We hope they hear the gospel too.
It doesn't have to be organized, but if it is, God bless it. It doesn't need to have paid people to run it, but great if you have the means. I do think it is much more of a blessing to the congregation if it is from the congregation rather than hired off...but if someone has the expertise to organize it all, they are worth their wages, if the means are there.
Christians in ancient Rome caught the attention of their neighbors because they were willing to take in the babies left exposed on the hillsides. In India and Africa, Christians caught attention because they were willing to touch the dead bodies that others were so desperately afraid to touch for fear of curses.
To be the ones who provide a warm lunch on Wednesday afternoons or who gather coats for people who need them, who offer ESL classes using Scripture...etc. how is that bad? "Program" or not, if it sincerely arises from a desire to serve those whom Christ loves.
I understand about the meaning of it all being lost in an era of commercialization of everything, including making the phrase "works of mercy" a catch phrase, and we certainly don't want the focus to be on works. But faith without works is dead, and so it does witness to others when we do good things. But the church has reached out to help those in need throughout history, through organized and unorganized means.
Spoken with great clarity, Susan. To trust the Word alone to convert appears so weak. How tempted we can be to think that it is the "Word plus" which is more effective. Whether that 'plus' is our great personalities :), our wonderful lives (don't look too close!) or our soup kitchens. I share your concerns.
ReplyDeleteBeth
Lora, I am NOT suggesting that the programs are bad.
ReplyDeleteWhat I AM saying is that these kinds of programs are often touted as the "things God wants us to do." But very few people will say that "feeding the hungry and clothing the poor" are things that are done for our own children, for our extended family, for our pastors, for our friends and neighbors. That is, for the people "God has put in our path." Yes, if we can do both, then super-duper. But resources are limited, and oftentimes, caring for the ones right here, smack in our faces, is all we can manage. That's kinda sorta part of the doctrine of vocation -- do what you've been given to do, at the post to which you've been assigned. If your free time allows further service to others, great! But how often (oh, how often!) are Christians urged to put aside their duties at home and for family and nearby neighbors so as to serve "others"! Why are those "others" a higher priority than the ones God has plunked into my life?
You also commented that we certainly don't want the focus to be on works. But what I'm hearing throughout most of synod (from the liberals and conservatives, both) is essentially a focus on works. It's like we're afraid to really really preach the Law and the Gospel, and let God bring forth the fruit He wants, where and when He wants it.
You said "faith without works is dead." Nobody is going to disagree with that. What I do disagree with, however, is how that passage is so often used to cajole people into taking on responsibility that causes them to neglect responsibilities to family. Think how often it happens that a woman doesn't go to an LWML meeting, or doesn't sign up for prayer chain, or doesn't volunteer for running a fundraiser for a local charity, and she is told "faith without works is dead." Well, what about making supper last night? What about teaching her toddler to pick up his socks? What about helping her new neighbor find her way around town? Christians DO do good works; their faith is not dead. We ought not prescribe particular good works to people; that's like prescribing penance, saying that THIS is what the absolution should accomplish, and on what timetable. Instead, can't we simply rejoice in the beauty of the good works that are growing in people's individual lives?
I'm not saying that congregations shouldn't run organized programs to help people. I am saying, however, that the programs should not draw us away from our primary stations in life, the immediate duties God has given as hearers, parents, children, workers, etc. And I am also saying that the vocation of women, in caring for those around them, is often belittled in the church, with more emphasis put on things the world values (jobs, income, titles, recognition, etc).
I agree with you, Scott and Beth. I have been in churches where the "outreach programs" became uncontrollable monsters. There was so much focus on those "programs" that they forgot to tend to their own flock. It was very sad.
ReplyDeleteSusan,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you on those premises. Too often the emphases on any type of church work (not just outreach) negates our most important roles (vocations). And when it is emphasized so much (by both conservative and liberal), it does seem like Law and Gospel and the role of the Holy Spirit is being pushed aside.
The only concern that I had is in some circles (and I'm not saying here), the very fact that a church has a "program" almost labels them as church growth, even when it is a desire that grew out of their desire to serve those in need. That I find equally concerning.
Oh, Lora, that would be so sad if every program got labeled as a bad thing, just by virtue of its being an organized program! Unfortunately, I guess I've just seen more of the "uncontrallable monsters" that Kathy mentioned. Even when programs start with pure motives and great plans and willing volunteers and participants, sometimes the programs have to be dropped in future years. And that's sad, but it seems better to me to go ahead and stop the program than to arm-twist people into serving in those capacities.
ReplyDeleteBut, yeah, it would be heartbreaking if people thought it were "church growthy" to run Meals on Wheels or give support to a pro-life center or stuff like that.
And on an associated rant, the Lutheran Witness came in this afternoon's mail. There was an article on acts of mercy. Pretty good article, overall. But I'd just read your comment about "if the means are there" to run programs. And when I know what it costs guys to go to the seminary, and when I know how many missionaries have been brought back to the States, it's kind of hard to see how many salaries are going to synodical human-care programs. I wish there was money enough for both ministry and human care. But what happens if there's not? (Actually, running those programs and sending pastors would be a whole lot more financially doable if the bureaucracy were slashed, but that's a whole 'nother subject!)
Susan,
ReplyDeleteSince you put your points in order, I hope you don't mind if I address them in order
1. Jesus said "let your light shine before men that they may see your good works and they may glorify your Father in heaven." We are to do good works so that people see it and are more open to God's Word. It is not making the Holy Spirit's work less, but it is breaking down barriers. Who's to say that those works themselves are not the Holy Spirit working to create faith in their hearts? Jesus wouldn't have said "Go therefore unto all nations" if He didn't want to use men to do His work, then He also wouldn't have chosen to work through the Word.
2. I've seen churches as well as you have that have a complete focus on bringing people in, rather than feeding those who are there. But whether we agree with how they do it, we still are to reach out to people. Who's to say that it is not a natural outgrowth of a lively faith? We cannot judge, despite what it seems to be. Even men who preached in the prison to spite Paul caused Paul to rejoice because the Word was being shared.
"Works of mercy" has become a catch phrase lately. Partly because it was largely ignored for a long time, and I think the good people in Human Care are trying to play catch up, and are earnestly, because of their faith, desirous of reaching out and equipping others to reach those who are in Satan's grasp....and they are in Satan's grasp.
3. As a woman who grew up when I did, while my head believes that there is no greater vocation than being a wife and a mother...I probably will always struggle with the fact that I cannot identify myself by a career, etc. I was taught from a young age that it was what I should want. We always feel a little outside the norm, and it makes us sensitive to that. We come into contact with many people who either don't think about what they are saying or assume that because we are at home, we must have plenty of time, or because we are the pastors' wives, we must devote all of our time to the church, etc. I wonder how much of this "we don't hear them saying...." is our own sensitivity? Because in reality, I am hearing a lot about vocation anymore...not from the people who are pushing programs...but all the same I am hearing it.
Dr. Laura said "there is no reason why a woman can't do many things in her life, she just can't do them all at once." The Bible is full of women who devoted themselves to acts of mercy, but they probably didn't have small children. We do need to emphasize more how important it is that mothers be respected for their devotion to their families. I think we can also find ways for the whole family to be involved in these things. We isolate children and adults far too much. I'm not saying that what you say isn't real (they got a little more tenacious with me this year about helping with VBS), but maybe it is one to which we are particularly sensitive. The women in our congregation that lead things are the "still active grandmas." They put it all together and make it so that those of us who can't do as much can contribute, and setting an example so that maybe I might be the one who takes her place and I can facilitate young mothers in doing what they can, also...hopefully without instilling too much guilt.
4. Yes, it can be a way for people not to be involved...but it also may be a way for some to contribute to the act when time is not what they can contribute. We've had people in our congregations feel very strongly about particular issues and donate their money to make it happen.
5. Yes, we do what we can, and if the people no longer can, then it may be that someone else takes it up or the need is filled elsewhere.
You are concerned that churches will turn into social agencies....but before there were social agencies, there was the church doing this. The social agencies that came about later were designed off the models of the churches (and sometimes in rebellion against). The church was the social agency. And she showed God's grace to those in need by providing them with their daily bread. By and large, women have been the ones who have done this...as I've said, not always the ones with infants on their knees or chasing young ones around, or homeschooling and dealing with children with special needs...but we do this because Jesus told us to, ....and our focus is on that.
6. No, I don't think we are treading on the danger ground of theology of glory.....suffering is a part of life, but it is merciful to ease it where we can, whether it be wiping our children's tears after they fall down or helping someone who can't pay their heating bill. "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this; to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." James 1:27 and again "If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?" James 2: 15-16
7. Well of course it is possible to guilt trip someone into doing something, but isn't a person somewhat responsible for determining what they can do and what they can't do and standing up for themselves? How much is the fault of the person who is seeking help and how much is the fault of the person who can't say no?"
8. Be careful not to place too much on the heads of the pastors. Good works do not always flow from the good will of the people without encouragement because the people are sinful. They have the devil, the world, and their sinful flesh telling them to think of themselves....and Satan surely doesn't want people to find mercy from the Church.
Sometimes the thing that keeps us going in doing good works is not an "earnest desire" but the 3rd use of the law. "God said to do this, so we should." I don't always want to cook dinner. I don't always want to be nice to my husband (and of course, I'm not), and I don't often want to devote time to the congregation when I'd rather be home knitting or even cleaning. Sometimes it is good that I do these things even when I don't feel like it. Sometimes, I have to look out for my needs and know that I'm not going to be a good mother if I push myself too far, and only I can say where that is...not the person who is asking me to help...they don't want to hurt me, despite how persistent they seem, and they certainly can't read my mind.
Luther complained that when people thought they were buying their salvation they were not hesitant to put loads of money into the offering plate, but now that it flows from thankfulness, the pastors are not being supported.
Communication is a two way street, pastors may not be sending the message out rightly, and people may not be interpreting it rightly. Our own human nature wants to earn our salvation for ourselves. That was the first sin...and it continues to be. But at the same time, whether a church has law and gospel exactly right, I know of few LCMS churches (and I know there are a some) that have lost Christ completely. So we are saying, we have to make sure that as a synod or a congregation, we have to be perfect before we reach out and show try to show mercy and love to others? Oh Susan, even if we are simply talking about agreement...we are never going to get there. Sometimes, we take a step with both growing in our theology and growing in our works at the same time.
But in the end, it does flow from the Gospel. It flows from the Lord's table, where we are fed His own body and blood by Him and in that act, makes us one with everyone there at the table, in the congregation, and in the Body of Christ as a whole. A proper understanding of this should make us want to reach out and show compassion to our brothers and sisters in Christ, and mercy to those who do not yet know Him. It should....but danged if my sinful nature doesn't get in the way. God give us the strength to overcome it.
Its eleven o'clock at night, so I am sorry if any of this is incoherent (and I have problems editing in these little boxes)...but I think you made some interesting and strong points regarding the role that the Gospel plays in this, and in sharing your concerns.
oh wow...If I realized how long that was (again, little boxes), I would've posted it on my blog...but it is generally good to keep a consistent location for discussion....
ReplyDeleteWhile I was busy this morning, I kept "thinking" things I wanted to write to respond to RBW. But it's hard to type when your hands are busy in the dishwater or chopping veggies. ;-) What I want to type, though, is too much. I shouldn't start; there's physics to teach and floors to Swiffer.
ReplyDeleteBasically, I think what we've hit on is a disagreement that's been argued in the Church since the days of the Jerusalem Council (or maybe even before). What is the place of the law in the Christian's life? How is the law to be used? What is the cause of good works?
I believe that Christ is not only my justification, but also my sanctification. I believe that "sanctification" is monergistic, every bit as much as justification is.
I believe that the call to repentance and the forgiveness of sins is the focus of EVERYthing the Church is about. It's all about what Jesus did for us. The Church's message is not an ellipse, with dual foci (good works and the forgivness of sins). I don't think RBW is suggesting anything else. But there are others who do, even though they deny doing it.
I think that we talk about "fruits of faith" but don't understand how fruit actually works in a garden or on a tree. Because what happens with how fruits actually grow in the garden has no similarity with how we today refer to "fruits" of faith.
Two quick comments:
#7. In the Kingdom of the Left, I think the responsibility lies on the guilt-trippee, for not having having had the backbone to say "no" to an activity. In the Church, I don't think there should be that kind of pressure for people to serve. Ever. The Church's business is to give God's gifts.
#1. I have a problem with your interpretation of Mt 5:16.
Jn 1:4-5, Is 60:1, and Jn 8:12 talk about Jesus (not our works) being the Light. Regarding the possibility that our good works could be part of the Holy Spirit's working to create faith, I think Augsburg Confession 5 speaks against that, as does the Third Article of the Large Catechism, and Smalkald III.8.10.
Now, I'm going to take myself firmly in hand and stop typing so that some boys and I can breeze through several more pages on nominative and objective pronouns.
I am really confused about something. What the heck ARE "acts of mercy"?
ReplyDeleteI can't hear that phrase without thinking of God... and I think I would have a hard time applying it to ourselves. Mercy denotes someone forgiving or being gracious to a person who does not deserve it (but in fact probably deserves quite the opposite). In the church, that is always (from my understanding) in reference to God and sinners.
It seems like it's being used in the humanitarian sense, though, in this conversation - which, I would think, completely waters down the word.
God being merciful has everything to do with His forgiveness bestowed upon we who deserve hell and damnation. He gives us what we don't deserve and takes upon Himself what we do deserve.
I am not saying there aren't other uses of the word 'mercy'. But it seems to me that we should avoid most of them in the church, and find more descriptive terms for what we are doing, reserving God's "holy words" for those places that they are most appropriate.
If I want an 'act of mercy' from the church, I'll go to receive the absolution.
PS: My above comment can be seen most clearly in the Kyrie: "Lord have mercy..." I am quite sure it is being used in a different way there than in that phrase "acts of mercy". I am also quite sure that I don't want it to mean anything to me, as a Christian, other than what it means in the Kyrie.
ReplyDeleteSusan, if what I said seems to be in conflict with either your interpretation of the Bible verse, or The parts of the Book of Concord you listed, then we have a communication error, because when I read those, I see no conflict. Please show me in particular where you think they do.
ReplyDeleteNowhere am I saying that we are earning salvation by our good works, or that the Holy Spirit works elsewhere but through His Word and sacrament. But the Holy Spirit working in us and sanctifying us does show through to non-believers. I have seen too many people accept our help and walk away without even the least bit of curiosity to think that "works of mercy" have any part in truly bringing someone to faith, but I have seen that when we have shown mercy to people who seemed least expectant to find it, the Holy Spirit brought them to faith.
I'm not saying the Holy Spirit works with out the Word. What I am saying is that the Holy Spirit sanctifies us and leads us to good works, and these are blessed. However, I am also saying that after receiving God's blessings, some things come easy, some don't, because of the devil the world, and our sinful flesh. I think my particular weakness, given how rare "extra cash" is, is when we are confronted with the need to give money to someone. In these cases, I am usually convinced it is the right thing to do, but in the back of my mind, I am wishing that I didn't have to. I also fiercely protect my time and privacy, but I see the necessity of giving it at times, just like you did with your congregation's dinner last month.
I guess on the issue of being coerced to give their time, it matters what we mean by coerced. I feel coerced when I am asked for the third time (and sometimes by the third person..so I know it is more a lack of communication) to teach VBS. Am I really being coerced? No, I just get more uncomfortable saying no each time I have to. That's my issue, really. If on the other hand, someone is being told something like "if you are a part of this congregation, you should be doing your part for our _____ ministry." that's wrong. Or if someone is told that how they help the poor and needy is how they show their good works (and therefore the fact that they are saved), while no one is paying attention to or necessarily knows about the love she gives her husband and children, or how she is praying for the sick in the congregation with fierce devotion, etc.....that's wrong.
And a church doesn't have to have any sort of program in place in order to be "alive" or to be showing the light of Christ to the community (both their own community, as it says in the Large Catechism, and to the world outside).
Nathan,
ReplyDeleteMercy applies not only to the salvation that God gives us, but to the way that He sustains us right to the very last detail, as outlined in the petitions of the Lord's Prayer. And it is also used in the Bible to refer to how we care for those who need it.
Romans 12 is a huge example of what both what Susan and I are talking about (though focusing on different points, it encompasses both).
Part of it talks about serving according to our gifts, vs. 7 says "one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness."(ESV) NASB and ESV use both use the word mercy (I didn't check others).
Luther describes what happens when we partake of the Lord's Supper as having both a vertical relationship, where God feeds us, grants us the forgiveness of sin, and sanctifies us; and the horizontal relationship, whereby partaking, we are joined with our brothers and sisters in Christ, in His body. Their joys become our joys, their sorrows become our sorrows. The Large Catechism says that "community" would be a better word than "communion" when referring to the Communion of Saints. We are not alone with God at the altar, we are joined to the person next to us, the whole congregation, and the entire Church, both here and in Heaven. Because of that, we show love and mercy to each other. Sometimes, God is mercifully providing daily bread or leading someone away from temptation through the fellowship of all believers.
When we pray the Kyrie, we are not only praying for our salvation, but in Divine Service I and II in the LSB (and in previous hymnals) we are praying for peace from above and for our salvation, for the peace of the whole world, for the well-being of the Church of God, and for the unity of all, and for this Holy house and all who offer here their worship and praise. Even the simpler "Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy" encompasses this.
Look at the First Article of the Creed.....which talks about how God created us and continually sustains us..."All this He does out of fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any worthiness in me."
Nathan, from the materials I've seen put out by synod and the sems, it appears that "acts of mercy" are things like feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, caring for orphans, visiting the shut-ins, providing care for the handicapped. Stuff like that.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure exactly how "acts of mercy" fits with the Regular Stuff Of Life. For example, is the church day-care worker who changes a child's diaper doing an act of mercy? Is it less an "act of mercy" when Erin changes her own daughter's diaper at home? Is it still an "act of mercy" if the day-care worker is employed in a secular child-care center?
If my dad is in the hospital and I go visit him, that's "just" being a daughter. But if I go visit strangers, then does my visit become an "act of mercy"?
I've been told that deaconess work is about doing "acts of mercy." But is it an "act of mercy" to teach math to schoolkids day in and day out? Maybe it is. I dunno! If it is, is it "more" an act of mercy for a deaconess to do it than it is for LaRena Stuckwisch to do it? I know several deaconesses whose responsibilities are 1) running youth group, 2) making shut-in visits, and 3) teaching confirmation class. Are those acts of mercy? If so, do they require a theology degree to do them?
If these activities are all acts of mercy, then why do we hear more about the "acts of mercy" done overseas? Or hear more about what is done for people who aren't part of our family?
Seems like it would be just as easy to talk about "serving the neighbor." That would cover the nearby neighbors and the far-away neighbors; the neighbors we're paid to take care of as well as the ones we serve without pay; the lovable neighbors and the despicable ones; the lonely ones and the ones who have family. All in all, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with the term "acts of mercy." I just think that what's been said about "acts of mercy" over the last 2-3 years has been skewed.
RBW asked how what she said ("We are to do good works so that people see it and are more open to God's Word. It is not making the Holy Spirit's work less, but it is breaking down barriers. Who's to say that those works themselves are not the Holy Spirit working to create faith in their hearts?") is in conflict with what I was saying.
ReplyDeleteIt sounded like you were saying that our good works are a means that the Holy Spirit uses to convert people. That didn't sound like you!! I responded that the Holy Spirit works through the Gospel. I know you agree with that. I'm also saying the Holy Spirit creates faith ONLY through the Gospel. I think you agree with that too. That's why I can't quite figure out the whole thing about people becoming "open" to God's word because of the nice things we do for them.
Regarding your fourth paragraph (time-stamped 11:34) about coercion. YES! That's exactly what I mean! I am offended when I hear Christians being scolded for not doing "this" particular "act of mercy" when I see what they did for Carol. Or being berated for not doing "that" particular "act of mercy" when I know what they did for Don. Or being told that they are selfish for staying home and caring for their own little families in our own little wealthy American society, when there are people in _____ living in shacks who are sick and in need of care. Like you said, that kind of coercion and scolding is just wrong! It not only offends me because of the denigration of my Christian brothers and sisters, but it offends me because it dishonors God and His atoning sacrifice. When people are told that their Christianity is in question because they're not doing this or that, it turns our eyes inward. Navel-gazing is NOT where pastors should be turning us. They are to draw our eyes to the atonement, not to our own works. And it majorly ticks me off when they get that backwards! Yes, there is a real need for the preaching of repentance, but they better be preaching real law instead of an achievable morality. When pastors turn Christianity into a religion where we talk as much about what we do as we talk about forgiveness, then I get riled pretty darn fast.
Now, to lighten things up a bit, let me respond to your comment about the turkey dinner at our church last month... :-D I am not eeeeven going to claim that what I did there was an act of mercy, a good work, or anything other than outward obedience (with inward chafing) to try to put on a good show for my husband's sake. LOL. Going back later that evening, the second time, was done willingly out of kindness for the poor folks who were trying to buy carry-outs and were going to be stuck eating turkey without mashed potatoes. But I'm pretty hard-pressed to say anything good about that either! I mean, I'm not going to say that eating turkey and stuffing and corn and pumpkin pie withOUT mashies is a situation that calls for mercy in the form of hot mashed potatoes. :-)
There is a road, and on either side of the road is a ditch.
ReplyDeleteOne ditch is the double-ditch of works righteousness and assumed inefficacy of the Word, where our works must build both ourselves and the unbeliever.
The other ditch is a sort of isolationism.
Our vocation is paramount. In it we must understand that our families are our poor neighbors, as well as the others. Those who might suggest strangers a higher priority than children, elders, etc. are just wrong.
We must find the middle of the road and stay out of the ditches.
Christians can only be motivated by the Gospel. It is the only thing that enlivens and compels. To "scold" a brother because they aren't doing enough is to confound Law and Gospel and to hurt and kill at the wrong time.
Hopefully this contributes something to the discussion that's not too naive or simplistic. I am sorry, but I have to admit to not deeply digesting all the comments thus far.
Scott