Dear BPCWA worshipper, The topic I chose for our Church Study Series this year was, “The Christian and Social Concerns”, which was conducted over 3 weeks in February. These recordings were dubbed into Chinese and screened over the past few weeks. Churches are increasingly involved in social work, which has become somewhat of an accepted norm. All worshippers in BPCWA must understand it from a biblical perspective and not simply follow others. Hence, it is important for us to revisit the key salient aspects after the series so that we do not forget them, and in case we did not grasp them well.

The pervasiveness of religious social concern. We are probably familiar with the name of the Nobel Peace winner, Martin Luther King Jr. He was a Baptist pastor who rallied his congregation, other Christians, and society at large to push for the government to give blacks equal rights in America. He used Christian terminology to undergird his speeches. Many churches today have similar mindsets and approaches to address society’s social concerns. 1) The erroneous justification. A commonly used justification is the Parable of the Good Samaritan, which they claim teaches Christians to show God-like altruism to love those in need, just as the good Samaritan did. However, applying proper hermeneutics to this parable, we see that the focal idea is not altruism. Christ used this parable to answer the Jewish lawyer, who “willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?” (Lu 10:29). Hence, this parable is Christ’s answer about “who” to love, not an exposition on how to love (i.e. actively seek to do all the loving works that Samaritan displayed). The lawyer wanted to justify that he does love his neighbour. So, Christ intentionally used the example involving a Samaritan and a Jew because of the known animosity between them at that time. Since the lawyer’s question was about who he should love, not how he should love, Christ’s extensive examples of the kind deeds of the good Samaritan were not to instruct the lawyer to be altruistic. Instead, Christ sought to give the lawyer no wriggling room not to say that the neighbour to the robbed Jew was the Samaritan.  But when Christ, in turn, asked the lawyer who was the neighbour to the Jew in the parable, how did the Jewish lawyer answer? Even with such tremendous kindness by the Samaritan, the lawyer still would not even use the term “the Samaritan” but could only muster up “he that shewed mercy”.  2) The erroneous expectations. Sadly, the misinterpretation and misuse of this parable and the command to love thy neighbour as thyself are used to justify the social gospel’s focus on social work as God’s expectation for Christians. This forced interpretation is commonly used by Christian organisations to support the social gospel’s claim that God’s command to “love thy neighbour” is all about social work. It is a strong push in today’s environment, but we must stand firmly that Christ’s “kingdom is not of this world” (Joh 18:36). Contrary to the social gospel’s expectations of the focus on active social work, Christ did not promote social work nor did He actively seek out to feed or give to the poor and hungry. Instead, the Lord avoided the crowd that sought him for social relief (Joh 6:15), and even chided the “followers” who sought Him “because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled” (Joh 6:26). He wanted them to know that His purpose was to offer spiritual salvation, not to do social work among them. Instead, Christ’s church must invest our labours “not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed” (Joh 6:27). God’s true church has a far more pressing God given spiritual work to proclaim Christ’s Gospel that we must stay focussed on.

The progress from social concerns. The church’s focus is a spiritual one, but the social gospel’s concern is mainly physical.While the early New Testament church “continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Ac 2:42), churches are busy today in social work to improve the lives of the poor and disadvantaged. While Christians are commanded, “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all”, our focus is “especially unto them who are of the household of faith” (Ga 6:10). This is consistent with the practices and injunctions to brethren in need, such as in 1 Corinthians 16:1-3, 2 Corinthians 8:1-5, and James 2:15-16. Instead, the Social Gospel movement, initially spearheaded by liberals and modernists, looked to social programs to improve the lives of the society at large. We saw how John Wesley’s social ethics and concepts of “Social Holiness” have since aided the morphing of much of Methodism into the full-fledged Social Gospel in the late nineteenth century. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Gal 5:9). Tapping on secular philosophy’s ideas of Personalism, it was adopted into the programs of the Social Gospel proponents to establish a new social order through social action. Such programs often include actions focussing on the earth and environment, advocating for justice, concern for society’s social issues, and health and wellness programs. Particularly in the realm of health, an increasing trend is the promotion of medical missionaries. While “medical missions” in the English language may not have a religious usage, many Christians are now adopting the terminology “medical missionaries”. Many justify this by the likes of David Livingstone and Hudson Taylor who, inspired by books, used their know-how of Western medicine to access and evangelise the then-closed countries like China and Africa. Of the former, while in Africa, his focus was not primarily evangelistic. Of the latter, his focus was mainly as an evangelist and not as a doctor. However, the need to be a medical professional to access countries is not the case today. Moreover, most medical missions are not focused on evangelistic efforts but mainly on physical healing. We should not use examples of men as foundations for our practices. Furthermore, let us also be clear that a Christian doctor who works in another country is merely a doctor who happens to be a Christian. Otherwise, most of our worshippers in Perth should be called “missionary” engineers, accountants, teachers, and the list goes on!  Luke, the beloved physician (Col 4:14) was, together with “Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas” simply “fellowlabourers” (Phm 1:24) with Paul and not especially pointed out as being a “missionary doctor”. If we are not clear about this, we will slowly be redefining the word “missionary”, not to mention erroneously “Christianising” secular and social work, imbibing the Social Gospel mindset. The days when being a doctor or medical professional were potentially helpful for evangelising Africa and China are over and unnecessary. And if you blindly jump onto the popular term bandwagon and practice, it will put you shoulder to shoulder with many (including the Overseas Mission Fund or OMF which began under Hudson Taylor) promoting the Social Gospel’s causes. Once on the same bandwagon, you will eventually start to bring the same Social Gospel’s intent! If you believe you are called to missionary work, then go to FEBC to be trained in theology and be an evangelistic missionary. Do not imbibe the social gospel’s mindset blindly. If you are called to a secular vocation, then be whatever God has called you to do, and be His light in that vocation, instead of loosely calling it your missionary work.

God willing, I will continue in next week’s pastoral on the third and final session of the Church Study Series. Having studied some trends, let us keep in mind God’s injunction,

“Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God” (1Co 7:24).

Yours in our Lord’s service,
Pastor