FORGET NONE OF HIS BENEFITS
volume 23, number 17, April 25, 2024
Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word, Acts 8:4.
David Bosch, a white South African from the Dutch Reformed Church (NGK) was a well known missiologist and a major player in the anti-apartheid movement in his country. His book entitled Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission has a chapter, “Mission as Evangelism”, in which he addressed the issue of evangelism. Bosch gave this long definition.
Evangelism is that dimension and activity of the church’s mission which, by word and deed and in the light of particular conditions and a particular context, offers every person and community, everywhere, a valid opportunity to be directly challenged to a radical reorientation of their lives, a reorientation which involves such things as deliverance from slavery to the world and its powers; embracing Christ as Savior and Lord; becoming a living member of his community, the church; being enlisted into his service of reconciliation, peace, and justice on earth; and being committed to God’s purpose of placing all things under the rule of Christ.[1]
In light of the church’s task to evangelize and disciple the nations, the clause, “being enlisted into his service of reconciliation, peace, and justice on earth. . . “ raises my concern. So does the absence of any word on the horrors of hell which await all unrepentant sinners.
From July 16-25, 1974, 2300 evangelical leaders from 150 countries, called by Billy Graham, gathered in Lausanne, Switzerland for the International Conference on World Evangelization. The theme was “Let the Earth Hear His Voice.” Many consider this a monumental moment in 20th Century evangelicalism. Lausanne I, as it is now called, produced the Lausanne Covenant as a statement of faith which evangelical leaders world wide embraced. Generally speaking, the Lausanne Covenant was a good declaration of the importance of evangelizing all the peoples of the world. It did, however, open the door to what would come later at Lausanne II and III. Concerning Christian Social Responsibility, the Lausanne Covenant said,
Although reconciliation with other people is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty.
Lausanne II, meeting in Manila, the Philippines, from July 11-20, 1989, with 4300 participants from 173 countries had as its theme, “Proclaim Christ Until He Comes: Calling the Whole Church to Take the Whole Gospel to the Whole World.” One of the very beneficial “take-aways” from Manila was awareness of the 10-40 window of the “Resistant Belt” where the vast majority of unbelievers in the world live, mainly Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims. Lausanne II built, upon the foundation of Lausanne I. The Manila Manifesto, with its twenty-one affirmations, was generally a very good statement which puts evangelism and discipleship at the forefront of the church’s mission while still addressing our need to speak to areas of injustice and persecution in the world.
Lausanne III (4200 participants from 198 countries) in Cape Town, South Africa, October 16-25, 2010 addressed and developed further many of the same earlier themes on the church’s task to evangelize the world. However, The Cape Town Commitment, the official paper of Lausanne III, took a decidedly ominous turn in Part IIB, “Building the peace of Christ in our divided and broken world.” It says,
Reconciliation to God and to one another is also the foundation and motivation for seeking justice that God requires, without which, God says, there can be no peace. True and lasting reconciliation requires acknowledgment of past and present sin, repentance before God, confession to the injured one, and the seeking and receiving of forgiveness. It also includes commitment by the Church to seeking justice or reparation, where appropriate, for those who have been harmed by violence and oppression.
My concern is with the clause, “. . . commitment by the Church to seeking justice or reparation, where appropriate, for those who have been harmed by violence and oppression.”
While the idea of restitution is a Biblical principle, the concept of reparations is foreign to the pages of Scripture. The concept of reparations today means the government is to give money to people whose ancestors were oppressed, persecuted, murdered or discriminated against in some way. Reparations does not get to the heart of the problem, namely paying for what was done in former generations by people no longer alive for people who no longer exist. Restitution, on the other hand, is a Biblical concept. Zaccheus, the corrupt tax-gatherer, when meeting Jesus promised to give half of his possessions to the poor and anybody he had ripped off, he would pay back four times (Luke 19:8). I once counted at least fifty times in the Bible where this concept of restitution is mentioned and in each case paying money was required, Consider, “. . . then it shall be, when he sins and becomes guilty, that he shall restore what he took by robbery or what he got by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him or the lost thing which he found, or anything about which he swore falsely; he shall make restitution for it in full and add to it one-fifth more. He shall give it to the one to whom it belongs on the day he presents his guilt offering,” (Lev.5:4,5).
Why does God require money in making restitution? Because He knows that our words of apology or repentance can be cheap. How do we know one is serious in repenting? We can be pretty sure he means business when he willingly parts with his money to make right the wrongs he has done. Restitution goes directly to the one who has been wronged. Reparations, as it is used today, is payment of money by the government to people whose ancestors may or may not have been oppressed. Reparations are paid using tax money of people who had nothing to do with what happened 100 or 500 years ago. This is not just. So the concept of reparations as outlined in the Cape Town Commitment is unbiblical and should be resisted by Christians. Restitution is another matter. A new convert in our ministry once told me that he had shoplifted numerous items and he asked me what he should do. I told him that he should make a list of all that he had stolen and from whom and go to each one, ask for forgiveness, and offer to pay the price, plus interest, of the stolen goods.
To go further, if by “the Church” Lausanne III means the body of Christ in general, all believers, then this call to seek justice individually, if possible, and through the courts is legitimate. Individual believers should surely care about their oppressed, persecuted, and disenfranchised brothers and sisters, the true “least of these” (Matthew 25:40). Examples of seeking justice are to pay your lawn maintenance people a fair wage and to call wicked regimes to repentance for oppressing the poor and persecuted. But if by “the Church” Lausanne III means the church as an institution or denominations or individual congregations, then no, that is not the purpose of the church. While Christians and churches should speak out against injustice, the church has no power actually to effect justice. Such justice can only be meted out by the civil magistrate. Paul reminds us that the state does not bear the sword for nothing (Rom.13:4). Jesus told us that we are to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18-20). Peter told us to proclaim the excellencies of Him who called us out of darkness into the marvelous light of the gospel (1 Peter 2:9). These are our marching orders.
So now you know why the specific task of intentional evangelistic outreach and consequent discipling of believers has been slowly eroding in the western church. We have gradually, since at least the late 1960’s, been moving away from the task of evangelism and discipleship in the church to social action, and in some cases, a decidedly leftist ideology and practice. It is quite easy to understand how this has been happening. The world applauds anyone who helps the poor and oppressed, but the world is suspect of evangelism. Ask yourself this question, “What title is more applauded in our world—Advocate for the Poor or Evangelist?” Seldom is anyone thrown into prison for feeding the poor, but evangelists face this all the time.
But what did the early church do? When a few Galileans were unjustly treated by Pilate, the Roman Governor, who murdered them and had their blood mingled with their pagan sacrifices, did Jesus or His disciples demand justice? Did they seek for reparations for the family members left behind? When the tower in Siloam fell and killed eighteen construction workers (Luke 13:1-5), did Jesus demand an updated Occupational Health and Safety Act? When the believers were driven from Jerusalem into Judea and Samaria due to a severe persecution by Saul of Tarsus and others, did they demand that Pilate seek fair treatment from the Jewish religious leaders? No. They went about evangelizing in Judea and Samaria, something the Lord Jesus had earlier commanded them to do (Acts 8:4).
Bottom line, my friends—the church is to disciple the nations, beginning with evangelism. The church is not the avenue for social justice or legislation of any kind. Yes, of course, the individual believer, as salt and light, is to serve the poor and needy, to seek reconciliation, and to urge Biblical justice; but the individual believer is still to give evangelism and discipleship the preeminence. Anything less is a distraction coming from the evil one.
_______________________________________
1. David Bosch’s Definition of Evangelism, <www.petebrookshaw.com> August 31, 2011.
FORGET NONE OF HIS BENEFITS 
Leave a comment