Christmas time is gift time and rightly so. God gave his Son as a gift to the world. We, in turn, are called upon to emulate the Saviour, following his example by our own good works. For most of us, Christmas is the season in which we give our more or less lavish gifts to those we love and to others who are close to us by family or business ties. Generally our giving stops right there. But should it?
No one who reads the Bible can deny that those who know God are called to a ministry of compassion. This includes help to those in need, even those whom we do not know personally. The Apostle Paul exhorted the churches of Galatia to give money to needy believers in Jerusalem and then directed the Corinthians to do the same (1 Cor. 16:1). The believers in Asia Minor and Greece undoubtedly did not know the Palestinians personally. But that made no difference.
The injunction to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, the teaching of Paul that “as we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10), and many other passages in Scripture stress a common theme. Believers are called upon to do works of righteousness including striving for justice, promoting the good of all men, and helping to create the kind of society that will come as close to the ideal as is possible in this present evil world.
Many Christians do comparatively little with respect to these biblical admonitions. Why not? Rarely would it be because of deliberate disobedience to biblical commands. A more likely explanation is ignorance of needs and ways to alleviate them coupled with an absence of desire to learn. Also for many the sheer magnitude of the world’s needs leads to a feeling that unconsciously says “I cannot do very much, so will it really matter whether I do anything?” How should we respond to these attitudes?
First, we must understand that every Christian who is a faithful steward of God’s possessions must do something besides praying for those with needs. One can meet needs by direct involvement. But needs can also be addressed by indirect means such as entrusting money to responsible Christians who are directly involved in meeting the world’s needs. Scripture tells us that we should help as we have opportunity, and as we are able. No one can do everything, but everybody can do something.
It would be imprudent and biblically wrong to create in Christian hearts a sense of guilt for not spending all of one’s time doing such good works. No one supposes that the Holy Spirit calls all men to a pastoral ministry, or all Christians to missionary endeavor overseas, or all people to practice medicine or any other line of work. Acts 13 clearly shows that the Holy Spirit called Paul and Barnabas to missionary work. Those who sent them were not so called, although they were to keep informed and be supportive. Similarly, God does call some of his people to full-time service in providing relief, in promoting social justice, and in politics, even as others are called into business or a profession or a trade.
Second, everything that Christians do should be done in the name of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). This means, of necessity, that we speak to those who are not of the household of faith about the very greatest gift of all—the gift of eternal life that belongs to those who trust the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour. Even the cup of cold water should bring with it not only temporary relief but the good news of salvation. This poses difficult questions that Christians may answer differently. Is it proper for believers to do works of mercy without any mention of Jesus? Are works of mercy in and of themselves appropriate when no word of the Gospel is proclaimed?
There are those who believe that all men will be saved and for them this is no problem. Since all men, according to this view, are already in Christ whether they know it or not, Christians can do good works anonymously. But what about those who are not universalists? For those who believe that evangelism is imperative, then the question of doing good works without also sharing the good news is vital. However, there are places where it is illegal to overtly evangelize. Should not works of mercy without an explicit reference to Christ be carried on nevertheless? Can not such activities be considered a kind of pre-evangelism that might build good will and open the door to the Gospel at a later time?
A splendid organization like World Vision has had to face this problem. It receives a small amount of money for overseas use from taxpayers of the United States through the government. But due to separation of church and state strings are attached to the use of the money. It cannot do with this money what it normally does with funds contributed by individuals. Surely in such cases is it not better to use the money to alleviate distress and leave it to God that somehow, sooner or later, he will open the door to Gospel penetration as an indirect result of a good work?
The real challenge to the Christian church is to do what is needed: both help those in physical and economic need and bring them the Gospel at the same time. In this Christmas season, as we give our gifts to loved ones and friends we should also ask ourselves the question: “What are we doing for the unloved and the friendless around the world?”
Taking a Position By Avoiding the Issue
Of all the time spent debating issues at the recent Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) biennial general assembly, a third was spent on just one subject: homosexuality. Kenneth L. Teegarden, general minister and president of the denomination, wrote in a pastoral letter after the meeting that the explosive issue “could not be avoided.”
Some discussion is necessary to clarify the issues, granted. But the main question is, “Where do you stand?” The voting representatives at the Disciples assembly took four stands (see November 18 issue, page 56). The tallies varied a bit from one vote to the next, but the overall message was that the Christian Church leaders approved “liberal” positions on homosexuality by a margin of about two to one. Two of the votes were clear-cut statements by the assembly: one supported civil rights for homosexuals; the other opposed a resolution that would have condemned homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle for Christians. Although these votes indicate where the denomination is heading, the tallies on the two other questions probably tell us even more. The assembly referred an 8,000-word paper to the congregations to study. And the question of ordination of homosexuals was sent to a task force for study. The president said in his pastoral letter that the two statements on homosexuality that the assembly passed did not represent a final position on homosexuality. By referring the other questions for further study, the assembly avoided taking any firm stand on the issue.
It is not our intention to single out the Christian Church in this matter, but its October actions are an example of what is being done in many denominations. The United Church of Christ synod sent its congregations a study paper on homosexuality. Other denominations also are taking this position, which says in effect, “We really don’t know whether homosexuality is right or wrong, so we’re going to take a look at the latest literature on the subject.”
We regret this attitude. The leaders in these denominations are telling their people that they cannot rely on the Bible for guidance in this matter. Homosexual behavior was not invented in the last decade. The Bible speaks about it and emphatically condemns it even while holding forth the hope that those who have been guilty of practicing it can be saved (1 Cor. 6:11). Christians, both individually and corporately, who claim to apply the Word to all areas of life cannot ignore the plain teachings of Scripture on this issue.
The Quest For Human Origins
“How Man Became Man,” the Time magazine cover story for November 7, shows once again the human inclination for arrogance. In defiance of the biblical account of where man comes from and who he is, man continues to think that the proper study of mankind is himself, to paraphrase Alexander Pope. Time magazine in its story did not exactly ignore the biblical account of creation. Instead it dismissed that view with an offhanded reference to James Ussher’s attempt in 1650 to date the creation by working with certain genealogical data in the Bible. The approach Time used was not unusual; it represented the customary approach used by the mass media and by prominent scientific institutions.
We need to look beyond man to determine his identity. If we use an evolutionary model, we are forced to settle for an identity that is just one step and twenty million years ahead of the ape. Although the Time article gave no concise definition of man, such researchers as Richard Erskine Leakey settle for a Shakespearian definition of man as the “paragon of animals”—and that based on inadequate evidence as to how man came to exist. Many scientists force the origins of man into an evolutionary model because, by definition, science can only accept what it has discovered. To accept the word of some un-checkable authority is deemed unscientific.
Leakey says that “By searching our long-buried past for an understanding of what we are we may discover some insight into our future.” But such a search to understand what we are presumes that the answer is to be found essentially in what can be discovered by carefully studying the surviving relics of our long-buried past. It also presumes that we are merely more intelligent descendants of animals evolved from animals. In this way scientific man sacrifices his imago dei on the altar of self-worship. He denigrates who he really is in the very process of aspiring to be the final measure of all things. And man is not the final measure. When we refuse to submit ourselves to our creator and to what he has graciously revealed to us about our origins and identity, we not only strip ourselves of our dignity, we also become derelict in our duty.
To keep our semimonthly schedule the last three issues of 1977 are being published at three week intervals (November 18, December 9, and December 30).
The Time article acknowledges that “Scientists concede that even their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.” Nevertheless, the article matter-of-factly assumes the truth of conclusions that go beyond the admitted limitations of scientific inquiry. Science, by leaving aside purported revelation, can indeed restrict its pronouncements to what man can discover. But in disregarding revelation, it must also set aside speculation that goes beyond verifiable scientific discovery. Consequently, science will not be able to fully answer many important questions. Gordon College professor Jack Haas, in a CHRISTIANITY TODAY interview on the subject of creation (June 17 issue, page 10) said “To establish what has happened in the past goes beyond the ability of science.”
It is God who reveals to us the truth of our beginning and our destinies. Only by humility and by believing the Word of God can we adequately know what we are and obtain the most vital insight into our future.
His Birthday And His Family
Christ did not come to earth to give us Christmas trees. At this season of the year, perhaps more than at any other time, believers need to be reminded of why he did come. It was certainly not for partying nor for the kind of gift-giving that most people now associate with the observance of his nativity.
He declared, in stark contrast to conventional wisdom, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). This no-nonsense message was a part of Jesus’ initial training of the apostles. He wanted them to know from the beginning who they were following and where he was leading.
For the ragtag band of disciples he covered all the bases (vv. 35–36). The illustrations he gave were enough to leave them without question. If some of them were not married and did not understand the daughter-in-law, mother-in-law situation, then he spoke of father and son. He summed up the possibility of conflict by stating flatly that his followers would have to put him ahead of their parents and their children (v. 37). To all this he added the warning that a cross, the harsh symbol of execution, could be required of them (v. 38). Lest there be any misunderstanding of that, he told them that they could lose their lives for his sake (v. 39).
In this hard passage Jesus was quite specific in telling the disciples what his incarnation meant. He came to be God on earth. He demanded an allegiance above all their other allegiances. He was to have first place in everything. He could even promise that those who did give him top priority, thus losing their lives, would find new life (v. 39).
Finally, he instructed the disciples about simple hospitality and giving (vv. 40–42). The sword that he brought cut both ways. Not only would it cut his followers away from some of their former alliances, but it would bring new people into contact with them. In effect, he would give the apostles new families. They were to become a part of his family, and those who claimed a relationship with him would be hospitable to them. In turn, they were to receive others in his name. And they were to give such simple things as cups of water to fellow believers.
Christmas is upon us. Hallelujah! Let us not withhold any good thing from the people that he came to call unto himself.
Brother Andrew
This excerpt is from pages 67–75 of the new hook “Battle for Africa” (Revell, 156 pp., $6.95) by the author of “God’s Smuggler.” © 1977 by Brother Andrew. Used by permission.
I have always distrusted … people who blame the Communists for everything!
That may seem a strange thing for me to say, since to many people I am a symbol of resistance to the Communist governments of Eastern Europe. But it is true, nevertheless; I find it amazing the great variety of ills that some westerners manage to trace to the influence of Communism. I know people who see Communists lurking behind virtually all their troubles, from the prices of food in Paris to the failure of the corn crop in Kansas. A friend recently showed me an article in an American newspaper which declared that the change from Fahrenheit to Celsius in American thermometers is a diabolical Commie plot!
My very first trip to the United States, in fact, came at the invitation of an organization that was (unknown to me) totally obsessed with fighting communism. As I found when I got to their conference in a western state, these people had no idea what they were for; they only knew what they were against, and that was the Communists. They apparently thought, because of my reputation for smuggling Bibles behind the Iron Curtain, that I would give a red-hot speech condemning the Communists. When I declined to do so, they were very upset. So upset, in fact, that they dumped me right then and there, without even air fare to get home to Holland. I had to hole up in a hotel, with no money, until my wife could send me money to fly home. I had just enough money to buy a carton of yogurt each day, which I ate in my room, using the back of my toothbrush as a spoon! What an introduction to America!
David Adeney, an outstanding Christian leader in China who witnessed the takeover there by the Red Army, has said, “To paint communism in completely black colors and to fail to appreciate its very real achievements will only close the door to any meaningful communication of the Gospel.” I agree with that, and I think it is not at all constructive to spend all one’s time fighting communism as a political system per se. There are too many man-made systems which are cruel and evil to limit oneself to an attack on communism alone.
People somehow expect me to be a vehement anti-Communist, and I simply have never had the time nor the inclination to become a crusader against communism. I am not anti-Communist; I am pro-Christian. I am pro-people. God called me to take the Gospel to people, and whatever stands between them and me is my enemy.
But I must tell you that communism is hard at work in the Revolution in Africa. Moscow, Peking, and Havana all have their hands in the African pot right up to their elbows. The clearer we are on that critical point, the more clearly we can see what the stakes in the battle for Africa really are. The African crisis cannot be fully understood in detachment from the events in history which have led up to it. It is a part of a larger pattern of worldwide agitation and violence that is generated and inspired by the persistent fight of communism against the church.…
No other type of Communist involvement in Africa has so immediate and violent an effect on the battle for Africa as does the support of liberation movements and revolutionary fronts in various countries. The strategy is a simple one: throw money, arms, and support to one side of small wars, wherever they break out, help that side win, and demand reciprocal “friendship” when that group is firmly in power. On a continent where so many natives have legitimately and passionately fought for their freedom in the past thirty years, there is a fertile field for Communist infiltration. The rhetoric of communism mingles easily with the slogans of national liberation. It is only after the war is over that the “freedom fighter” discovers that his revolutionary comrade—whether Russian or Chinese—is himself a greedy, harsh slavemaster.
In Angola, Russia and Cuba threw their support behind the MPLA, and that faction has virtually eliminated all opposition in the country, though it represents only about 20 per cent of all Angolans.
In Southwest Africa, the liberation front is called SWAPO, and it too operates a constant guerrilla war, largely with Russian support.
Children in Tanzania come home from school singing a song they have been taught by nationalist teachers: “Kill your mother! Kill your father!” It is a hint of the breakdown of Tanzanian home life that has accompanied the pervasive Chinese influence in that country. Families are being forcibly moved into “resettlement areas” by the revolutionary government there, which has also brought tens of thousands of Chinese workers into the country.
In Mozambique, the Portuguese colonial regime was overwhelmed by the FRELIMO (Front for Liberation of Mozambique) revolutionary movement in 1975. FRELIMO began its fight twenty years ago with only two hundred and fifty men, against a well-equipped Portuguese army of forty thousand soldiers. Receiving constant infusions of money and arms from the Chinese and Russians, the movement eventually gained the support of the Mozambican masses, and moved from guerrilla warfare to outright control of the country. There is nothing wrong with nationalism in itself. There is nothing wrong with an Angolan or a Mozambican wishing his country to be governed by Angolans or Mozambicans rather than by Europeans in some remote capital. It is natural for a young black African to demand and strive for a nation that is governed by its own people. But too often in Africa it is not working out that way. Too often the Revolution has merely produced a change of slave masters, and not an elimination of slavery.
If a nationalistic revolution becomes an enemy of the church, if it cuts off a man’s access to God, if it opposes the free exercise of Christian worship and witness, then it is evil and it must be fought! However much we are inclined to sympathize with its hatred of imperialism, we cannot support its repression of the Gospel.
There is a great tendency for liberal white westerners—including many Christians—to be so enamored of the liberation movements in developing nations that they neglect to consider whether that movement is moving people further away from God. A regime that harasses and imprisons Christians is equally guilty, whether it does so in the name of black nationalism or the name of Marxist communism. The sad truth is that many liberation movements have sold their souls to the Revolution. In their understandable rage and frustration after years of antiblack suffering, they have too often unleashed their own horrors on the people whom they set out to save. Their legacy to the African continent too often has been to continue the tradition of violence and tragic savagery in a new and more brutal way.
Perhaps the earliest of these bloody local wars came in the Congo (before it was known by its present name of Zaire), as Belgian authorities withdrew, and Patrice Lumumba began to seize power. A United Nations document provided this look at Lumumba’s confidential instructions to heads of Congo’s provinces: “Terrorism is essential to subdue the population. Arrest all members of the opposition. Imprison the ministers, deputies, and senators. Do not spare them; revive the system of flogging. Inflict humiliation of the people thus arrested. For example, strip them in public, if possible in the presence of their wives and children. Those who do not succumb in prison should not be released for at least a year.” (The Western world responded to the bloodshed in the Congo by showing a cruel side of its own. The United Nations set up a detention camp in Katanga, and imprisoned thousands of Baluba tribesmen, most of whose only crime was to be members of the “wrong” tribe. Forty thousand civilians were jammed into a single camp. It became a ghetto, where no drainage system existed, and fifteen hundred tons of fecal matter accumulated. One thousand inmates died in the first three months.)
There is no monopoly on cruelty in Africa. No race, no political group can lift up hands which are clean of violence. It is a continent whose turbulent history seems to have elicited from whites and blacks, colonialists and revolutionaries, foreigners and natives the ugliest human qualities. It is impossible in modern Africa to take sides on the basis of absolute virtue. None seems to exist. Rather, the Christian responsibility is to demand of every government and movement that it provide its people a free opportunity to seek God and do the work of His Kingdom.
