Autumn 1984
Page 2
Page 4
Page 1S
|
|
|
Page 19The ACC Journal is published quarterly by the editors. The views expressed in
articles or fetiers published in the Journal are those of the authors and are not
necessarily those of the editors, regular contributors, reviewers. or other members of
the Apostolic Christian Church (ACC). The articles and letters selected by the editors
are believed to be relevant to ACC members and generally helpful in improving the
quality of church thought. discussion and practice.
Subscriptions
Subscriptions to the ACC Journal are $5.00 (US.) per 4 issues. All issues of the
current volume will be inclued in the subscription rate. Volume 2 begins with the
Summer issue of 1984 and includes the Auwma and Winter issues of 1984 along with
the 1985 Spring issue. Volume 3 begins with the 1985 Summer issue. Subscription
renewals are due at that time
All correspondence with the ACC Journal should be seat to either editor:
Jim Fodor Dennis Feucht
3815 114A St, Apt. 301 5275 Crown St
Edmonton, Alberta West Lina, OR
CANADA To] 1N5 USA 97068
Also, letters or articles for publication in the ACC Journal should be sent to either of
the above addresses, For more information on ACC Journal publication guidelines,
please request an “Information for ACC fouraa/ Authors" brochure.
Regular Contributors/Reviewers
Rolien Easter; Tremont. IL Joho R Swinford; Pasadena CA
Jim Fodor; Edmonton, Alta Dennis Feucht, Portland, OR
David Kapusinski; Norton, OH Joseph Haring; Pasadena, CA
Dan Simon: Issaquah’ WA
Cover
“Christ Driving the Money-Changers From the Temple.” Rembrandt, 1635. The
Temple is to be for people like the tax-collector who came to pray and seck
wrgiveness (Lk. 18:11-14), but Jewish avarice had destroyed this purpose by making
into a den for robbers. The legitimate sale of sacrificial animals was accompanied
by money-grabbing and commercial rivalry. Jesus protested this din of commerce
that made difficult the praying of Gentiles in the outer court (cf. Is. 567) and he
protested the exorbitant rates of exchange for foreign currency and high prices for
sacrifices (ef Jer. 711)Editorial
However much we would like to keep economics and faith
separate, the Gospel forges them wgether, establishes a
mysterious but real connection between them, and asks for a
continual reckoning from each of us concerning the obstacles
ve place in the way of their unity. To large extent, then, this
issue of the ACC Journal is devoted to the theme of the
relationship between economics and the Christian life.
The money issue has once more begun to simmer, fueled by inflation, fluctuating
interest rates, an unsiable economy, and the disconcerting fact that the lifesiyle ve
‘were once Used to is now being involuntarily modified by forces beyond our control
Without question the subject is a touchy one and all too often our responses as
Christians are not well-reasoned ones. The tendency of most Christians is to fall into
line behind one of two extremes when it comes to money. On the one hand there are
those who look upon money, wealth and property as a great distraction and burden
for the Christian. They are rather fond of quoting the Matthean text which says that
“itis easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter
the kingdom of God" (Matt. 1924). On the other hand, there are those who espouse @
very oplimistic and positive view of wealth. They claim that a hefty bank balance is a
sure sign of God's favor and blessing--only look at righteous men like Abraham or
Job! Indeed, there seems to be some truth on both sides, but I think we all realize how
‘easy it is for a Christian to slip into extreme and inflexible positions when it comes to
money.
The Christian gospel has some things to say about money. First of all, it tells us that
money itself is mot the issue; the real issue is how we get it and what we do with it. In
other words, money may not be intrinsically evil, but in its comings and goings in
our lives it is frequently the root of evil. Money, of course, isa human invention that
facilitates the transfer and distribution of goods and, for the Christian at least, it must
also always be at the service of the Gospel
How we get money may be stated in negative terms; for example, “Thou shalt not steal”
(Ex. 20:15). However, “Thou shalt not steal” is more than an injunction against
outright theft. Itis also a directive to employees to pay just wages and to employers to
do a fair day's work. Moreover, there are even subtler ways of stealing, such as
depriving the poor of access to what belongs to them. and of carelessly using Up
resources, thus making them unavailable to succeeding generations. How we acgire
our wealth as Christians, therefore, bears careful scrutiny
But not only is the manner of acquiring money a pressing concern for the Christian.
what we do vith our wealth is equally important. Do we tithe only a certain percent
of our income or are we expected to be ready to give it all away? Just what kind of
giving is expected by the Gospel? Jesus may have given the best ansver to the "how
much” question when he urged the rich young man (Matt. 1921) to rid himself of
whatever swod in the way of acknowledging that Jesus alone sufficed. The costliness
of Christian discipleship boils down to precisely that: detaching ourselves from
2material goods, from prestige, power, advancement, or whatever else stands in the
way of attachment to Christ. In other words, the Christian gospel is, at its heart, about
loyalties and dependencies, and Jesus set down some rather specific guidelines for
those who would be his disciples: divest, deaccumulate, resist the urge to consume
Perhaps thinking about money, property, possessions and wealth vill help us. in a
sort of indirect way. to re-focus on the issues of trust and security. It is hoped that
this issue of the ACC Journal will help to further thal end
The author of the second article, “The Christian and Material Resources’. is
gratefully indebted to the criticisms and Helpful suggestions offered by Joe Haring
However, any weaknesses or inconsistencies that may remain are solely the author's.
Jim Fodor
co-editor
A Call For Letters
The ACC Journal is intended to be a vehicle by which Apostolic Christians can share
with others the results of their own biblical studies or essays on the application of
Christian beliefs to practical life. Many of us tend to be hesitant to write something
for publication, and good materials are consequently not made available to others. If
you have something that could be of possible interest to others in the church, put it
in writing and submit it to one of the editors (listed above), We will be glad to work
with you in preparing your contribution for publication. If you are not sure that
your material is appropriate, write a brief (one-page) summary and submit it for
comment, we will happily explore its possibilities with you
Here are some ideas for possible ACC Journal articles
+ STUDENTPAPERS - Student papers written for classes in the humanities and
social sciences (such as psychology. sociology. economics, anthropology.
history, education, and so forth) may be re-assessed in terms of their
implications for the Christian faith and presented as articles.
+ BIBLE STUDY NOTES - Many people prepare long and hard for Bible studies in
their local church. The notes and/or outlines of such studies could be modified
into the form of an essay or article.+ STIMULATING DISCUSSIONS - Often Christians find themselves immersed in
invigorating discussions over matters that are crucial to their faith. The
“results” of insights gained from such exchanges would be valuable to share
vith others,
* BOOK REVIEWS - Reading of fine Christian books may be of especial benefit
to you and you may wish to direct others to invaluable sources. Critiques vould
also be worthwhile
Dear Editor;
Thave just received Volume 2 Number 1, Summer 1984 issue of the ACC Journal and I
could not help notice the artwork on the cover. Unfortunately, no mention is made
either of its meaning of its artist. I am wondering if you could enlighten me on what
this drawing represents
I notice the words "ACC" in the large rectangle. This, I take it, is ovr church's
designation--Apostolic Christian Church. Everything within this large rectangle isa
circle with connecting lines. Below this there are hexagons, squares and triangles
and so on joined to each other with lines. A few lines join to the larger rectangle
designated “ACC.” Does this mean that the AC Church is reaching out towards others
and sharing its faith with the unconverted as well as being in fellowship with its own
members? Or is the AC Church entering the computer age along with the vast
network of communication systems? Could this be a symbol of what the ACC Journal
stands for?
Richard Roberts
Toronto. Ontario
Dear Editor;
In reading Bro Dennis’ editorial, Christian Faith and Politics (Volume 2 Number 1
Summer 1984, pp 2-3), one is left feeling that Christian involvement in politics ought
4to be a mystical type of involvement that “transcends the powers of this age.” A
logical area of concern, then, might be the type of works likely to proceed from the
exercise of such a faith
Before progressing further it will be advantageous to define terms, The following are
defined in the Thordike-Barnhart Advanced Dictionary (Revised, 1979) Scott,
Foresman and Company: Glenview, Illinois.
politic: adj: 1. wise in looking out for one’s own interests, prudent; shrewd.
2. showing wisdom or shrewdness. 3. scheming; crafty. 4. political
politics: n; 1, management of political affairs: the science of government
2. political principles or opinions. 3. political methods or maneuvers.
One can see that the placement of the letter “s" can make a profound difference in
meaning, Additionally. the term “love” will be operationally defined as:
those actions on the part of the believer that manifest responsibility for
the spiritual and physical well-being of others, to the exclusion of
coercive activities. Spiritual and physical well-being can only be
determined from Scripture and is, at its core. the expression of God's will
in a person's life as he experiences salvation, growth, and service. by
faith, in accordance with God's Word
It is’ noteworthy that government was the second of the three major institutions
founded by God--the family, the government, and the church. The Divine mandate
for government was handed down to man through Noah (Gen. 95,6) and what was
significant about this mandate was that, prior to the giving of the Law, God required
capital punishment for murder. What may disturb some people is that God reserved
all other judgement for Himself until the time of the Law. Even the heinous crimes of
the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were not to be dealt with by human agents, but by
Divine retribution. Lot. of course, was responsible for reproving their evil deeds,
which he failed to do, and by abdicating his responsibility (that is, love for the
population of his adopted nation) he abandoned them to God's judgement even though
he himself was saved
With the giving of the Law came additional enforcement duties for the agents of
Theocracy. Crimes such as adultery, theft, and Sabbath-breaking were to be handled
by the rulers of the people under the aegis of the High Priest. The inscription, "In
those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his
own eyes” (Judges 21.25), indicates not only the potential for anarchy. but also the
potential--even under the restrictions of the Law--for greater freedom to do the will
of God. Since the Law no longer binds the Christian, he is thus restored to a pre-Law
condition within the Kingdom of God. The implications of this must be addressed.
Paul judged freedom to be a prized possession of the Lord's servant (I Cor. 721-23)
because it enabled hlim to be totally open to the expression of love through the Holy
Spirit's leading The more willing a person is to be lead of God, the more he desires
the freedom to exercise that leading: the more self-willed a person is, the more
desirous he is to be under a government which may give excuse for his selfishness.
It requires greater responsibility to live by faith than to live under the Law. A slave
is not as responsible asa free man.
We also need to be concerned with various kinds of government, all of which have
expanded from the Noachic Covenant. Autocratic governments all function the same
‘way--those who are governed have no civic responsiblity to exercise love, although
the Christian under such a government retains the moral responsibility entrusted
him by the Lord. Governments which function by the exercise of electoral franchise.
however, extend the responsibility of governing to the electorate. Under universal
5sufferage every citizen is Caesar.
Such a situation throws the Christian into a potentially dangerous position. Not only
must he render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's (he is Caesar!), but he must
render to God the things that are God's. If a hypothetical human government
composed of Christians should come to power, then they would be faced with the
exercise of the principles expounded in Romans 13. This hypothetical situation
notwithstanding, to abstain from participating in the political process under
universal sufferage would be, for the Christian, to place himself in voluntary
bondage to others. This is a condition which the Apostle Paul preferred not to choose
because it limits the possibility of exercising one’s love. The straw men which Bro
Dennis put forward and demolished in his editorial are not the only options for
Christian activity in politics. Because nations have human governments (as do
churches), they are sometimes in error and do not always espouse God's cause. In
such situations it is the individual Christian's duty to become involved as the
conscience of his society, speaking out against those things which are in error.
Under universal sufferage, this becomes mandatory because silence implies consent.
If sufferage is not exercised, and Christians do not vote when they have the
opportunity, they consequently have no right to speak out on issues with which they
disagree and which they could have influenced in a godly way by their participation
In essence, by not voting they have abandoned their nation to God's judgement.
Ii must be emphasized that these considerations can only be studied as they influence
the individual church member. The church collectively has no franchise and
subsequently cannot become involved in partisan politics. Its function is to ensure
that sound doctrine is presented to the individual member so that he can make
choices consistent with that doctrine. The church cannot deal with government per
se, but must deal with the issues as seen through God's Word. What doctrinal stand
Vill be taken regarding abortion, euthanasia, parental rights, legality of church
educational ministries, and a host of other issues? From that stand the individual
member must go forward to exercise his franchise or, better still, become actively
involved in politics himself in order to prevent the passage of legislation which
would be contrary to God's Word or hinder the ministry of the church.
Itis not necessarily true that all choices for a political involvement assume rejection
of Christ's principles. A bigger problem possibly lies in the fact that most Christians
have fallen for the humanist/socialist view that government is to provide material
good and/or influence the marketplace so aso restrict selfishness. The church has
failed to speak out on “political” issues and thereby has left the individual Christian to
seek instruction concerning these matters from the established political machinery
Our politics must indeed be different from that of this present age, but it must
nevertheless address the same concerns.
The Christian church did not defeat the Roman Empire; the Roman Empire infiltrated
the church and emasculated it because individual Christians did not have the freedom
to resist evil politically. The modern example of the Polish trade union movement is a
secular and humanistic one, and should not be compared to Christianity. Certainly
Christians must be concerned with such issues as “political freedom" and even
ational self-determination”, otherwise without such provisions such things as
ourage when threatened” and “suffering for righteousness” would be forced upon
the Christian when he could be spending his time spreading the Gospel instead. The
Christian must be involved in applying Christ's principles to politics so the spread of
the Gospel will not be hindered. He should take his vacation from political
responsiblity only when the Devil takes his,
6Jim Hrubik
Edmonton, Alberta
Reflections on "Christian Faith and Politics”
For many centuries man has struggled fervently to devise @ political ideology that
Would suit the needs both of those who governed and those who were to be governed
The struggle continues and no end seems in view. History is replete with countless
socio-political upheavals and atrocities that testify to man’s incessant attempts to
implement yet another “new idea” Unfortunately, much of Western political
thought has developed in a vacuum of humanism to the exclusion of scriptural
teaching or Christian input. This is true despite the fact that political theory has
conspicuously marched hand in hand with “Religion.”
‘The mindset of modern, Western nations in general has been to establish government
without regard for the Theocratic model established by God in the Bible. Theocracy
asserts that the law of the king (or for that matter, any other political authority)
recognizes and lives under the ultimate control of the Lord God. Indeed, a whole host
of political models and archetypes have emerged in our world that have no
connection with this Theocratic ideal--the “constitutionalism” of John Locke which
has had an emmense impact on American political thought is just one example
Similarly, many other political ideas have issued from the Renaissance, the
Reformation, and the Enlightenment, everything from “Social Contract” theory to
Machiavellian amoral political strategems: that is. the belief that in the political
Tealm “the end justifies the means.” Some political ideas, of course, did affirm the
concept of a divine order in the affairs of human government. But by and large
political philosophies (particularly French political philosophies) espoused that man
is the incontrovertible measure of all things and that governments need not
encoumber themselves with “spiritual” questions.
Since the roots of such political philosophies explicitly clash with Biblical principles,
there has always been an air of impropriety to the body politic. There has always
been something unpalatable about politics for the Christian. Consequently,
withdrawal and avoidance has been the usual response. Christians were willing to
endure almost anything, even direct assaults from a hostile political regime (which,
in most cases, led to martyrdom), but they consistently refused to compromise their
faith by “losing themselves" in political concerns. Nevertheless, of the three major
political uprisings in the modern, Western world--the Russian, the French and the
American Revolutions--only the last has established itself as a basis of reform with
God as central to the affairs of human government. This system of government
stands unique in the world today. Beliefs in such values as “inalienable rights”
granted to each human being by a benevolent Creator has provided the undergirding
principle of American constitutionalism. With such provisions as these and various
other opportunities to redress grievances, the question that forces itself upon us is
this: Should Christians living within such political structures exercise these
freedoms, make redress for grievances or hold political office? In other words, to
hat extent should the Christian be involved in government?
These questions, of course, are not easily answered. But often a glance backwards can
7be of help. Historical precedent has been set by none other than our own brethren
Our forefathers demonstrated a rich heritage of political involvement, particularly in
Switzerland. Ia July of 1843 Samuel Froelich and a group of Swiss church leaders
unequivocally affirmed that, by the grace of God and the leading of the Spirit. they
Would resist the state dictum requiring all children to be taught in the public
institutions and that they be given a thorough indoctrination in the slate-approved
religion of Catholicism. Their position progressed from redressing grievances to
actual non-compliance with the repressive state laws. Persecution followed and soon
the gentle waves of the Swiss alpine lakes were washing ashore the bodies of those
brave Nazareen Christians forcibly drowned because of their overt political
involvement. Invariably persecution has within ils very being. a throbbing political
heart that is carefully concealed by a well tailored overcoat! It comes as no surprise,
then. that politics has left a bad taste in the mouths of most Christians--our fellowship
not excluded.
Perhaps this rather unsavory taste of politics has somewhat dissipated from the
mouths of Christians this side of the Atlantic by the divison of church and state in our
own land. The framers of the American Constitution thought it best to keep religion
‘and the state separate and risk the consequences rather than have the state defend an
“official religion." In order to avoid this marriage of religion and state it was decided,
vith some commendable insight, that the two remain celibate and distinct than to
consumate the union and progenerate an offspring named “persecution
Nonetheless, it remains to be seen whether it is in fact better to have the state urn a
knovingly blind eye to religious matters or to install within the highest reaches of
government those people whose thrust in politics is to propogate the maladies of
secular humanism. The dilemma that a Christian faces then is this: is it better to
“soil” one’s hands by becoming involved in politics or to forfeit one's voice in
government to the spiritually inept who themselves wish to eliminate Christian
values?
Once again, we must turn to an important contribution of the past to help us see our
Way clearly--the Reformation concept of the dichotomy of society. The Reformers
believed that Christians ere governed by higher dictums than secular law and need
no law to maintain an orderly society since the Christian values of love, charity,
obedience to the king, and good works were sufficient to benefit government and
society. Of course. a good number in society were unsaved and of necessity needed to
be subjugated by secular law and punished by civil authorities so as to maintain order
and suppress evil. This conviction may work provided that those in government were
themselves quite neutral and the law was equally and vithout preference enjoined
upon society as a whole (Rom. 13:1-7; I Pet. 2:13-17). The situation today. however. is
considerably different. In almost every case the ungoldly have a stranglehold on
‘Various levels of government and their aspirations are to manipulate legislation for
purposes that further the cause of secular humanism. In other words. a distinct
“anti-Christian” mentality grips the very realm of politics in our Western culture
We are definitely living in a post-Christian era,
Jesus himself acknowledged the fact that Satan was the ruler of this world (Cf. Matt.
48f.). The Apostle Paul also was cognizant of the very real power that stood behind
World historical processes (Eph. 6:12). Can there be a synthesis of the precepts of God
and the mammon of worldly principalities? Hardly! Of course. there is ample
scriptural evidence that men of God such as Abraham, Joseph and Daniel offered, by
God's power. considerable direction in the political and economic life of “the
fations.” Many of God's children made representation to political figures. Indeed,
governments may be ordained of God but, not unlike the institution of marriage, itis
8temporal institution destined to become obsolete in the kingdom to come. Christian
input into government, therefore, may serve the purpose of maintaining or
enhancing social order, values, morality, the common good or the work ethic, but its
main thrust will serve nothing more than that of a spiritual restraining force. In
order to live peaceably and orderly. one must uphold biblical principles lest society
degenerate into chaos and moral turpitude. The law of entropy in thermodynamics
holds emminently true for society as a whole at least as much as it holds for molecular
structures. It is evident that without energetic Christian representation to and in
government society is bound to fragment into disorganization
The true church has never emerged victorious over a fallen Rome or any other state.
republic, or monarchy. It has triumphed, through the blood of Christ, over a greater
adversity; namely, sin. Indeed religious opportunists and political strategists have
repeatedly used religion as a vehicie with which to govern. However, the true body
of believers have likewise always laid down their lives because of their fidelity to
Christ. They valued the love of a Savior more than the seductive enticements of
political compromise
Poland does not represent a valiant spiritual struggle over militarism. The purpose
of Christianity is not class, economic or political struggle. nor is it the suppression of
certain regimes. The truth of the matter is that man suffers the plight of sin--a
matter entirely beyond the realm of political or economic innovation. To free from
oppression or debt or to free from sin may be analagous but it is not equivalent. For
from a common matrix of sin there arose chronic. insoluble strife and the oppression
of irredeemable debts. Such a "system" still dominates the world today. Jesus himself
acknowledged its reality and the apostle Paul gave it definition: ".. we wrestle not
against flesh and blood, but against principlalities, againsts powers, against the
a of hae darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”
ph. 6:12
Economics, therefore, may be the solder that binds the tin can of politics together, but
the heat of man’s ideologies and corruption is melting it apart. Gluttonous material
consumption and the wreathing hands of those that readily finance this vice only
serve to preserve a negative and ultimately debilitating system. In due course. this
perpewates financial enslavement through debt. Unfortunately and all too often
Christians become entangled within these webs of political-economic captivity
Instead of succumbing to such a system, Christians ought to reform their finances to
eliminate debt as much 4s they should strive to reform politics--since both go hand in
hand
A demonic spirit of autonomous freedom, situation ethics, belief in the perfection of
‘man, secular humanism, amoral education, and sensual entertainment is slowly
disintegrating this generation and fragmenting society. Ironically, these pestilent
values are enthusiastically championed by the media, the academic world and
government legislation. A political solution is like prescribing a band-aid for a
fapoiously malignant cancer within the body of society. It is time for biblical
principles in government! Politics may be the finger in the leaky dike but it is God
himself who holds back the tide water of human corruption due to sin (II Thess. 2.6.7)
Therefore, more can be done by prayer than by politics--although this does not
absolve us from our civil responsibilities. Jesus hed much to say about our role in
serving our fellow man and our witness in socioty. Nevertheless, man's condition is
primarily spiritual and not political. All political systems have failed or come short of
meeting man's condition. As Christians. then, our primary goal is to win souls not
votes! The Gospel is “apolitical” in regards to salvation, and it is our perogative to
5reap a harvest for God regardless of the condition of the political field. A secondary.
Boal is to establish as favorable an environment as possible for the freedom of
worship. the education of our children and the propagation of the gospel. In this
regard. politics is an open and constructive option for the Christian.
As Christians we cede that person-to-person ministry ought to be taught and lived
in our homes, churches, workplaces, among our neighbors, our friends and in school.
However, the public ministry of the Gospel is such that it's truths be declared within
the confines of our educational system, the healing arts, yes, even within the
multiple tiers of government. Forthrightly, ve must admit that the private ministry
of the Gospel is easier and, with few exceptions, exempt from danger. The public
ministry. on the other hand, is frought vith immense challenges, resistances and the
ever present danger of persecution. As the "light" and “salt” of this world, let us
realize that God's Word indeed applies to the common good of society and government
(Matt. 5:13.14), Of course, it is safer to be quiet and remain unnoticed within the
comforts of our home than to step out publicly, to change social policyor let our
lives be savored by others. Certainly persecution exists as a realistic sequel; Jesus
forwarned us that this would be the case, But this reality affords us no reason to
retreat from the task before us,
Louis Gajdos
Edmonton, Alberta
Toward a Mutual Understanding
One of the most constructive things which may have occurred since the beginning of
the ACC Journal isthe flurry of efforts to clarify what “theology” actually is for the
Apostolic Christian Church and to determine to what extent it can be tolerated within
its boundaries. No doubt this stir of activity rests smack in the middle of the stated
intentions of the co-editors, and for that they deserve recognition. At the same time,
however, one gets the impression (in reading through the various issues of the ACC
Journal) that the co-editors are also themselves rethinking the questions. I fecl
compelled, therefore, to try to clarify some of my own positions in regard to the ACC
Journal, to speak to a number of the articles contained in the same, and to answer
ae Johason's response to my earlier letter [as found in Vol. 1, No. 3, Winter 1984, pp.
79)
Because of my stated objection to the excessive reliance of some of the Journal's
authors on theological writings outside Apostolic Christian circles, 1 was content to
regretfully ignore the ACC Journal. (I write "regretfully" because I then believed
that most of the Journal's intentions were needed and that such a publication could
serve a valuable purpose.) However, I have changed my position tentatively as
result of a very fruitful conversation I had with Dennis Feucht at the 1984 Eastern
Camp. This, combined with the fact that I have now followed the treatment of
“theology and fraternization” issues in the last three issues of the Journal, allows
me to formulate a considered response to this issue. Let me begin with a homemade
parable
}Eliand Jacob vere journeying toward a little village which both of them
vere intent on reaching. Presently they came upon a fork in the road
This presented them with an unforseen difficulty. Which way were they
to go now? Eli, being the oldest, first looked down the left fork and
spotted the tops of some buildings which, he naturally concluded were
the houses of that village. Immediately he started down the left fork, but
Jacob quickly called out, "Hold on, not so fast! How do you know that
those buildings are those of the village we seek? We need to explore the
right fork to make sure.” But Eli was quite convinced that no further
“exploration” vas needed because it was quite obvious that the buildings
he spotted were those of their desired destination. But Jacob insisted and
so.after much debate, Jacob set out on his expedition while Eli patiently
‘waited for him in the fork in the road
After some thirty days and a hundred miles of walking Jacob finally
returned to the fork in the road where he found the waiting Eli
Sheepishly he told Eli that the right fork was definitely the wrong path,
‘and together they both proceeded down the left fork. As they resumed
their journey. Eli puzzled to himself why Jacob had wo do so much
exploration to see the obvious. But at the same time Jacob kept on
mumbling to himself that Eli did not really appreciate thinking about or
exploring other alternatives
The position of the ACC Journal can be closely alligned with the person of Jacob in
the above story. For there is an implicit assumption in all the Journal's articles
about theology that unless one studies theology one is anti-intellectual. Yet at the
same time the examples of serious theology that the Journal exhibits are absolutely
unremarkable, uninteresting, and inconsequential, Furthermore, what Jim Fodor
seems 10 allow as one aspect of theology is already commonly practiced among most of
our membership. He says:
Without the built-in corrective of a mature theology (which is itself
constantly subject to critical revision), the preachers and teachers of
the church can readily stray from their fidelity to the Word of God. In
this perspective theology is at once the intellectual expression of the
church's repentance and the permanent possibility of the church’s
reform. [ACC Journal Vol.1 No.4, p.8)
To suggest that one Who does not participate in the formal study of theology--or even.
objects to it--is necessarily more inclined to *... stray from their fidelity to the Word
of God" is, to say the least, condescending and insulting to the spiritually
right-thinking brothers and sisters who have developed the Apostolic Christia
Church to where it presently stands. The above parable is intended to suggest that
many of our members may lack any formal or intellectual training in theology and
‘yet develop, over time. an excellent understanding of Scripture from the Bible itself
In fact, I might even suggest that the Word, being so long and so thorough and
covering so much time, makes a complete study of the Bible a highly productive
enterprise in ils own appropriate context.In Jim Fodor's Spring 1964 editorial he makes a number of very honest concessions:
Unfortunately, theological study has not always been useful and the
suspicions and fears of the majority are not altogether without
substance. [p.2]
His considerable display of the apparatus of exegetical science only
produces paralyzing and unhappy trivialities, and the inner muscular
strength of the lively young Christians present is regrettably squeezed
to death in the formal armor of his abstact ideas. [p. 3]
Little wonder thet theologians came to be associated in the minds of ACs
with the ‘scribes’ of the New Testament--enemies of Christ. [p. 4]
In some ways these early fears of and objections to ‘theology’ were
rightfully grounded. |p. 5]
Lappreciate the ingenuousness of these reflections. By violating the first rule of
debating (which is to concede nothing), he has demonstrated a Christian spirit of
honesty, openness, a strong desire to build understanding and to be constructive
However, in the midst of all these good reasons to discard much of theology he
suggests that there are moments of good. But isn't this something like standing next
toa landfill and looking for something good to eat?! This. it seems to me, is analagous
Wo standing next to a landfill and looking for something good toeat. When you see a
truck that you know comes from a good restaurant you run over to it quickly after it
has dumped its load to look for something good before it becomes contaminated
Certainly this is possible. but why not go to the source of the good food directly?
I did not miss the point of Jim Fodor's article. 1 think it can be summed up partially
by his own words:
An authentically Christian theology, therefore, is always church
theology, that is, theology of and for the people of God. It is a
constructive and systematic exposition of the faith by which the church
fives and which provides it with the critical tools for judging the
faithfulness of its life and witness. Such a conception of the theological
task is rigorously functional rather than speculative. [p. 8]
1 fee! that there is no question at all that we need Bible scholars. This ministry is,
after all, a form of watching and praying (Matthew 26:41). That Bible scholars have
to deliberate over Greek or Hebrew perspectives or theological positions of the past
centuries to guide the church on a safe course for this century is. however. frankly
untrue in my experience and in my judgement. It suggests a far too fragile or
tenuous dispensation of grace and divine leading for the “ordinary” believer. Jim
Fodor also correctly demonstrated an understanding of this fact when he wrote."
the early generations of ACs demonstrated a strong belief in and reliance on the Holy
Spirit in the believer which would enable him to understand the Scriptures without
special learning, and also to interpret them afresh. independently from other
teachers." [p.5)
This remark brings us close to the crux of the matter. Perhaps the Apostolic
12Christians of my generstion, and the older generations who were not involved in the
Eastern European churches during the unrest of the first and second World Wars,
have a shorter or less dramatic personal history of depending upon the Holy Spirit to
carry them through issues and upheavels which they did not totally understand.
Consequently, we have no complete understanding of how dependable and
contemporary this guidance of the Holy Spirit can actually be. Lacking this
knovledge, we wra to what has been our culturally ingrained solution—"more
study.” We are led to believe that “a thorough study” will invariably reveal the truth.
The entire history of the Bible suggests to me thet it is not in “study” that our
salvation is assured but in the leading of the Holy Spirit. 1 am aware that the
Scripture does say, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth
not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (II Timothy 2:15);
nevertheless, it was not study that saved the apostle Paul from death, but the
miraculous working of the Spirit through a young boy. Nor was it Paul's magnificent
understanding of weather conditions and navigation that saved his life, but the quiet
speaking of the Holy Spirit assuring him that though they would be shipwrecked no
‘one would lose their life.
Quite frankly. I fear that the impulse to tuen to formalized theology, though motivated
by the highest intentions, is destined to frustrate or dull our receptivity to the
directions of the Holy Spirit. Feeling moved of the Holy Spirit to speak to someone and
Jearning that they had just been waiting for such an encounter is far more dramatic
and perhaps even more meaningful than learning that, for example, “a Greek (of
Gnostic tradition) would say: Man hasa body; man has a soul [whereas a Hebrew would
say:] Man is a body; man is@ soul.” [ACC Journal. Vol.2 No.2. p. 17)
At this point I do not want anyone to hastily jump to a conclusion that is beyond what
Tintend to say. Certainly I feel that many of our members can be fantastic Bible
scholars and can write papers for the ACC Journal that vill tend to guide the
membership at large. 1 believe they are already vell prepared for this task and
should be given a forum in which to do this. To this extent I will be enthused about
the utility and distribution of the ACC Journal. All such materials contributed from
student papers, Bible study notes, stimulating discussions, book reviews, and
professional activities are indeed rich ground for reading that vill make a
difference. [Cf. Vol. 1 No. 2, Fall 1983, p.9]_ However, material contributed from
formal theological studies is the death of the Journal if by "theological studies’ one
means to go beyond Bible scholarship alone and include the treatment of other
religious bodies and/or theologians from outside the Apostolic Christian Churches.
Finally, let me eddress Grog Johnson's letter [Cf. Vol. 1 No. 3, pp.7-9].I regret writing
about my frustrations concerning the lack of articles for the Messenger in my
original letter. I do not feel the two publications (the Messenger and the ACC
Journal) vill ever compete because their focusiis, as hes been correctly pointed out,
quite different. In some ways the format that Greg describes as "forum" for the ACC
Journal is much more preferable to me then that of the Messenger. I believe the
tradition of the Messenger--far from my editorial policy--forbids me from
pursuing that provocative and interesting path. However, I notice several disturbing
words that keep cropping up in some of the Journal's articles, words like
13‘arrogance," “maturity.” "closed minds," and “anti-intellectual,” None of these (with
the possible exception of “maturity") are true of any of the participants in this
discussion. As I get to know the participants better | am impressed with the real
possibility of coming to & constructive understanding--provided that we are willing
to pay the dues: to speak and listen and write and read.
Concerning the matter of fraternization, let me begin by saying that there is no
Question that a significant aumber of Apostolic Christian Churches make it a crucial
point of doctrine. I am quite aware that not all of ovr churches do So, however.
judging from some of my mail since my original letter to the Journal. What is less
clear, though, is what is meant by “fraternization.” It seems that in those churches
where this doctrine is strongly emphasized they mean, at the very least, thal
members of the Apostolic Christian Churches shall not altend other churches for
regular worship services, or attend non-denominational revival meetings,
evangelistic speakers who may be invited to some hall or auditorium, and other
church-like functions. The purpose of this, as far as I can determine. is to avoid
challenges to our unity of thought regarding church doctrine and practice
The wisdom of this position is absolutely clear to me. I have had friends who went to
some of our churches that treated the issue of “fraternization” lightly. Many of them
‘have since left our fellowship. Here again. do not misunderstand me. 1 am not saying
that they are no longer Christians. 1 am saying that they are no longer of any help to
our churches because they have taken their talenis elsewhere. That is both
unfortunate and regretable. Nevertheless, the fact that the issue of “fraternization”
is not well defined may in fact be an opportunity for us in disguise. I have personally
taken a rather wide interpretation of “fraternization”. For example, I do not see much
difference between attending another church's worship services and listening to
another church's radio or TV. program. Yet, 1 know some who do not support
“fraternization” defined as attending other churches who do listen to radio programs
‘sponsored by other denominations. For that matter, I know of very few people who
have never read some kind of guide to studying the Bible or some kind of
commentary. That, too, may be considered by some w be “fraternization” or perhaps
as "the beginnings of theology.”
Those churches who do oppose fraternization do so not as an act of “arrogance and
paranoia” as Greg Johnson speculates, Rather their's is a passive stand to peacably
avoid the confusion that has been experienced by people when family members
fraternize. Fraternization is an enemy of unity: fraternization does not promote
unity. Thus, objections to fraternization are not always or even necessarily due to
“inflated ideas of the importance of [one's] own opinions” as Greg Johnson suggests.
Rather they arise from a genuine belief that the faith that has been preserved in the
Apostolic Christian Churches is very unique and worthy of preserving. Of course,
this faith is fragile in a sense. It is like a candle of light in a blustery, stormy world
of spiritual hysteria. It nees a globe to both magnify the illumination and yet at the
same time to protect the flame from being snuffed out by the popular winds of
doctrine that happen along
What, then. can we conclude after this rather extended discussion? I think we can
conclude that the ACC Journal has some exciting prospects. As I have said, the
14Messenger is no place to hammer our doctrinal issues, However. this is not to
suggest that any such forum is not needed. Here is where the Ie 1 may be of
some help. Our side of the Apostolic Christian Church--following the split of
1904--has followed a different path organizationally than the sister church. I think
our path has been less successful. There appears to be something of a vacuum in the
leadership: decisions made by the elders are not well recorded for the guidance of
future decisions; the conclusions of elders’ meetings are not well communicated to the
general membership: some elders seem to have a greater sense of vision than others.
These are real problem areas and they threaten our church. If the ACC Journal can
be a constructive force in guiding us to 2 more thoughtful organizational system
while at the same time remaining sensistive to the Holy Spirit's guiding, then more
pover to it. If, on the other hand, it is going to be @ printed version of Paul's
‘experience with the philosophers on Mars Hill--that is, full of sound and fury yet
signifying nothing--then it is worse than nothing at all. It will be a diversion of our
better efforts and noblier thoughts from our heavenly calling. My prayer then is
that this effort not be in vain. May the Lord guide this discussion so that we all may
become well-tempered tools in His hands and not merely striving against and
amongst ourselves. May the churches be profited by this dialogue and may we, the
Apostolic Christian Church, be among the remnant that will still have faith when
Christ returns.
Paul Weingariner
Mansfield. Ohio
Money, Property Rights, and Christianity
Joe Haring
Possessions pose perplexing dilemmas for many Christians: how should we use
money....and what about profits? Is it good to own property? Borrow money? Keep
possessions? Or should we give it all away to missionaries or to the church
foundation? Conventional wisdom seems to extol the usefulness of money and other
forms of wealth. Economists and sociologists try to be neutral and analytical about it
all. Hovever, the Bible talks about wealth in a many-sided way. On the one hand it
speaks of wealth in terms of “the root of all evil.” and. on the other. it advises usto
“make friends of unrighteous mammon. In this article we will search out a balanced,
Christian view of five economic topics of current interest to Christians: (1) money:
(2) property; (3) possessions; (4) profits; and (5) giving
a}Although money has been called a source of power and security by worldly men for
centuries, many Christians and non-christians have professed skepticism about the
Virtues associated with it. Economists (those who study the uses of money as part of
their work) define money asa “medium of exchange, and a standard of Value.” and
refer to it as a common denominator in measuring income. salaries, tare
expenditures of all kinds.
The Bible says that “the love of money (not money itself) is the root of all evil,” and
advises us to pay taxes by “rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." We are
‘warned, moreover. that"... it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” Yet in the parable of the
talents, Christ suggested that we use our riches to gain other riches, or at least deposit
them with the money changers to earn interest.
‘The upshot of this seems to be. at least in the language of business, that money should
be used constructively for the purposes for which it is intended--including paying
taxes, contributing to good causes and in business exchanges. In other words,
Scripture tells us that we can respect and use money without loving it; there is n0
need to think more highly of it than it deserves. Bul we canaot understand money
fully without also examining the uses to which money can be put, and the things it
‘will buy, such as property and possessions.
Property
Real estate and other forms of property have been traditionally treated as sources of
economic security. Buying a house or & piece of land is a common activity for # man
seeking to establish himself and to provide a measure of financial safety and stability
for his family. Thirty-year loans are frequently aveilable to home-buyers, provided
they agree to sign a mortgage which pledges the property to the lender in case the
borrower cannot make the payments he has promised.
Economists describe land and buildings as capital goods which provide services
(living space or shelter) over a long period of time. In the case of office buildings or
factories, property is called @ factor of production. Not all land, commercial
buildings. or houses yield services, as farmers with dry or rocky land well know.
ither are factories or houses always in use. Economists tell us that land can be
barren. and that houses and buildings can be undesirable or even completely
unusable if they are not maintained and kept safe. For example, many large
apartment buildings in slum areas and other unattractive parts of New York and
other such large cities are actually abandoned by their owners, who can no longer
16collect enough reat to pay the taxes and upkeep. Many empty storefronts are visible
fa the downtown sections of almost every city in America as well. Thus not all
property is useful of productive, and it may not be safe to use let alone afford
secure investment.
‘The Bible contains numerous references to land and property. describing the customs
and traditions associated with the holding of property, the rights of land inheritance,
duties and privileges of landowners, and even the prices of some notable land
parcels-the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas Iscariot and used to buy the potter's
Field, for instance (Matt. 27:3-10). But nowhere does the Bible call land “secure” or
something to depend upon in time of financial need. Instead, there are numerous
seferences and parables describing the use of land ta sustain life, wo raise grain and
pasture animals. As well there are some scriptural teachings about the misuse of land
Rad buildings. 2s in the case of the rich man who wanted to tear down his barns and
toild bigger onesso he could ake his ease. And there is the account of Ananias and
Sapphira who sold their land ‘and then lied about the amount of money received. God
ses tobe advising that property be used visely and prudently. We should therefore
Fecognize property as @ responsibility. for we are wo be stewards or judicious
managers, not careless landlords, of the property with which God has entrusted us.
Cars, horses, dogs, and animals of all kinds, clothing, jewelry. and other possessions
fare sources of great comfort to many people. They are convenient, warm, responsive,
protective, and beautiful, and they serve important functions. Some possessions
Bcwally preserve lives, as does clothing in cold weather. It is possible, of course. t0
have more possessions than we need to sustain life. Justification for holding many
goods has been offered in numerous ways. Extra clothing may be needed for
Especially cold climates, or for travel to places that are wet or dry or where clothing
Cannot be washed or cleaned readily. Airplanes, trucks, tools, instruments and many
Giner objects may be needed for emergencies or to perform a certain type of work
Uniforms may be required. Possessions may also be thought of es symbols of status,
profession, rank or affivence
Economists write frequently of the uses and misuses of possessions, or capital goods,
asthey call them. But they refer to such items chiefly as factors of production, OF as
Something that is valued for its usefulness in producing goods or providing services
to human beings. Surplus or unnecessary goods have little value in production, and
may in fact become expensive burdens for which to care
The Bible treats possessions much sit treats property. They are to be used wisely by
Cheistians vhose main goal is to serve the Lord. Thus possessions are tools or
fasiroments to enhance the effectiveness of Christian life. There are many warnings
seal the dangers of excessive love of possessions, and their misuse by Christians who
set too much store in owning or possessing, or for whom riches of any type become
faols or usurp God's place in one's life. Surely ve should not set our hearts on
possessions
7Prefits
Profits have been variously defined as both good andevil by many observers, a good
number of whom seem to be either earning profits themselves or generating them
for others. Businessmen tell us that profits are necessary for economic survival
They are absolutely necessary for growth and prosperity. Without profits
businessmen would be unable to invest in the machinery and equipment that
manufactures most of what we use and wear.
Customers and employees of large corporations may speak resentfully of inordinate
or excessive profits, suggesting that profits come out of the hands of low income
people. This debate raged fiercely during the Great Depression of the 1930's among
socialist writers and politicians, Communist writers as well have been critical of
profits for over 100 years,
But economists have attempted to resolve the debate over profits by changing its
definition or, more precisely, by offering several definitions of profit—some of
whieh are desirable and some not. Economic profit is more generally defined as
“returns to capital which are higher than what is needed to get investors to invest.”
More simply put, economic profits are “excess profits.” Most would agree that a
businessman needs some return for his investment or work. Yet at the same time
they would not condone overly large profits, The technical question turns on how
the word “excessive” is defined.
The parables of Jesus concerning talents and pounds seem to support the idea that
stewards and servants are duty-bound to make good use of what they have. gaining
extra talents or pounds for their masters. Gain (or profit) will be rewarded by their
Lord, and lack of gain will be criticized and even punished. We are instructed in
these parables to use or invest our gifts even if it seems risky to do so, lest even that
which we have be taken from us. The very minimum would be to lend our pounds to
the money changers, who would pay an interest return,
The dilemma of profits is apparently resolved by the concept of stewardship: as
servants of our Lord and Master we are given talents, pounds, and other forms of
riches to Use profitably for Him. Stewards are custodians of things that belong to
someone else, much like trustees of a foundation or executors of an estate. They
carefully follow the instructions of the owner or donor of these goods, managing
their use for the benefactor, not for themselves or for their personal satisfaction
The chief instruction book (the Bible) advises Christians to earn profits--even large
profits--but to do so in such way as to benefit our Lord. The profits belong to God,
and so does all our money. and every piece of property and each possession
Although in the sight of man's law we may own things outright, we are in fact only
holding them and deploying them as agents or stewards. They really belong to God
Although donating money and other forms of wealth is recognized as socially
desirable. conventional human wisdom points out that although it may be good for
others to contribute to nobler causes, one’s personal fortunes may be enhanced by
keeping everything for oneself. Buta mature Christian steward knows that he does
not own anything in his own right; he recognizes that his Heavenly Father has
18entrusted him with money, property, and possessions for a limited time. along with
writen instructions (in the Bible) on what should be done with them. God's stewards
need only give full attention to reading the Bible and praying in order to know how
to allocate these gifts for the Father. Giving the Lord's money for the Lord's work is
like spending your company’s money on company business: if it goes in the right
amounts to the correct applications, then are we profitable servants
There is a large literature on tithing. on giving one-tenth of our income for the
Lord's work. The source of this literature can, of course, be traced back to the Bible
itself where several passages may be found in support of the practice of tithing
“Bring ye all the tithes in the storehouse." “But woe unto you Pharisees for ye tithe
mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgement and the love of God.”
Clearly then. the concept of stewardship goes far beyond ten percent. It states that
100% of our income in fact belongs to God, and we are merely his representatives on
earth. It is a weighty responsiblility, and we all need God's help to bear it.
rg
What then is the conclusion of the matter? The key word in Christian Economics is
“stewardship.” We should hold money, property, and possessions as stewards or
agents of the rightful owner, God. The various forms of wealth should be put to use in
God's vineyard in such a way as to gain large profits for our Heavenly Father. and
then ve should distribute these profits liberally and generously, as from the Father
who owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Like Joseph in Egypt and Daniel in Babylon,
‘We should manage resources in a strange land as if they actually belonged to our
Master and King, which they do!
d Material Reseurces
by Jim Feder
Should we be poor like Christ was poor, or is it permissible to be
rich? This paper will explore some aspects of material resources
and other forms of wealth as it impacts on the Christian lifestyle
The companion article in this issue (by J. E. Haring) suggests that
true Christians can be neither rich nor poor, since they are merely
stewards of what Christ has allowed them to hold and/or be
responsible for. God “owns” all the things they have. In this essay,
however, we will ry to go beyond stewardship of God's riches to @
discussion of the motivations for accumulating wealth. In order to
do so we need to bring together some of the prominent New
Testament teachings on the Christian's relation to wealth. The
author's basic premise is that the very person and work of Christ
are at the root of a proper Christian attitude toward vealth and that
only by recognizing this Christological foundation may one fully
appreciate the subtle dangers of selfish wealth accumulation.
19The Christolegical Found:
Discussion of the Christological basis of a proper Christian attitude toward material
Wealth might best begin with a word of caution. One must recognize that the New
Testament (NT) picture of Jesus as a man of limited means does not suggest that some
form of asceticism is the only way to do the will of God in regard to handling one’s
earthly goods. Jesus was not a rigorous ascetic and the gospel can no more be equated
with the financial poverty of Jesus that it can be equated with the pain he endured on
the cross. Therefore, to direct one's efforts toward legalistically “copying” Jesus’
lifestyle is to miss the point of why such a lifestyle is possible. Nevertheless, there is
a powerful analogical relationship between the work of Christ and the life of the
Christian
In the incarnation Christ became identified with man in order that man might be like
Christ. One's personal acceptance of this identification means that he now shares the
experiences of human life with Christ himself. As evidenced by the temptation.
suffering and death of Christ (Heb. 27-18), God has identified with the human
situation and this identification has serious implications for the Christian's material
possessions. In 2 Cor. 8:1-15, for example, the liberal giving of one’s resources to
those in need is seen as an essential part of the Christian life because Christ himself
gave up riches to become poor for the benefit of those in need. In 8:1-7. the gift of
money to the needy (the Jerusalem saints) is seen as an exhibition of divine grace in
which it is an honor to participate. The initiative for such giving comes first
through giving oneself to the Lord. Indeed, Paul draws a connection between
excellence in faith. utterance. knowledge, etc. on the one hand and excellence in the
matter of gracious and tangible relief to the needy saints on the other.
Verse 9 clearly indicates why Paul can view financial concern for others as a
measure of the genuineness of love The apostle establishes a direct Christological
connection between the sacrifice of one’s own resources for others and the sacrifice
of Christ's "riches" so that he might be poor for our benefit. As Christ's poverty
contributed to men becoming rich. so our relinquishing of financial resources to
those in need should provide these needy ones with the material necessities of life.
This act of Christ was an act of grace (charis)--that is, an act that was undeserved by
those receiving its benefits. The same charis that characterized the work of Christ
is to characterize the work of the believers.
In vv. 10-15, Paul clearly emphasizes the principle of redistribution of personal
resources; that is, the establishment of an equality (isotetos) based on need. Those
with abundant material wealth must supply the needs of those without material
possessions, and the goal is equality. The applicable principle of equality based on
need is further supported by Paul's reference to the gathering of manna (Exodos,
16:18); the amount “gathered” should not detract from the distributive equality. The
point here is simply that the Christian's willingness to sacrifice his earthly riches
for the good of others is a natural outgrowth of his association with Christ, who
sacrificed so much more.
In a more general sense, Phil 24-11 establishes the Christological foundation for the
priority of concern for others. The general idea of v. 4 is that one is to look out for
the interests of others rather than for one’s own interests. The use of kai ("also") in
v. 4 is important and involves two possible meanings First, one might view it
adjuactively, the implication being that one's concern should be both for oneself and
20for others, But a second possibility involves taking kai in an emphatic sense. This
‘vould imply in a more radical way that self-concern is, in a sense, to be rejected in
favor of concern shown to others. Such a rejection of self-concern is clearly the
Christological pattern set forth in vv. -11.
The Bangers
The coming of Christ marks, in # very profound sense, the presence of the kingdom
of God. And this reality carried with it strong warnings concerning the dangers of
‘accumulating material wealth. In the teachings of Jesus, the concept of money and
the acquisitive spirit of man together seem to take on an other-worldly character.
Though the NT does not see money per se as evil, in Matt 6:24 God and money are
clearly placed in contra-distinction to each other. People lack the ability to serve two
masters. for they will inevitably polarise their attitudes toward each. Either Christ or
‘vealth may be “master” (kyrios), but not both, The point here relates specifically to
the question of accumulatilng wealth, as indicated by the context of Matt 6:19°33.
Jesus distinctly. if implicitly. indicates that there is a close association between the
possession of wealth (laying up of earthly treasure) and actual service to that wealth
Service to money categorically rules out the possibility of service to God, and the
‘accumulation of money is indicative of service to it. This point iseven more clear in
the case of the rich man. hose entrance into the kingdom was obstructed by the
possession of excessive amounts of property, wealth. and means. Sacrifice of
possessions was necessary for his entrance into the kingdom, Though the indication
Rere is not that such sacrifice is sufficient for entrance into the kingdom. the
sacrifice does appear to be necessary. In other words. the acquisitive spirit of man
bars him from entrance into the kingdom.
Other NT passages speak specifically of the invidious personal consequences of
accumulating vealth. From Luke 8.14 one learns of the potential inherent within the
possession of many material goods for inhibiting or preventing the maturation ofthe
Word of God in one's life. Just as weeds shut off or choke plants from proper
nourishment, so riches prevent nourishment of the Word of God in one's life
aiMoreover, in 1 Timothy 6, Paul speaks of material versus spiritval gain. It seemed that
some in the church had used their faith as @ means of gain (probably material gain,
cf.v.9), and the apostle opposes such conduct, He turns the factor of gain around and
states that gain comes through godliness with contentment. In short, “sufficiency”
can be found in godliness. Food and clothing and shelter should satisfy us, for that is
all we need. The invidious
consequences of desiring to
accumulate wealth are also
Stressed in vv. 910 and
include falling into
temptation, and senseless
and hurtful desires leading
to ruin and destruction. In
V. 10. the love of money is
seen as specifically
deleterious to folloving the
faith in addiltion to being, in
a broader sense, the root of
all evils[1) The task of the
rick is laid out here quite
clearly (vv. 17-19). Those
possessing wealth are to put
their faith in God rather
than riches and to set their
concerns on doing good
deeds rather than on riches.
In this way their hope will not be placed in tenuous earthly possessions. By giving
liberally, therefore, it is possible for one to take hold of the real life and thereby lay a
g00d foundation for the future.
The crucial issue, then, relates to whether one can have wealth without the
accumulation of it. The Biblical record appears to answer the question by its
invectives against the “laying up" (accumulation) of earthly treasure. The ‘rich’ or
‘wealthy’ are those who “lay up" earthly possessions. Material wealth seems, by
definition, to be ethically in opposition to the teachings of the NT. The proper use of
money, in fact, should prevent its accumulation to the point at which it is considered
“wealth.” Wealth can hardly be wealth apart from an accumulation of one's
resources, and it is just this accumulation that Jesus attacks in the Sermon on the
Mount. In short, the radical nature of the kingdom of God does not permit Christians
to accumulate wealth
he Bemands ef Grace
Much theology has emphasized salvation through faith almost to the exclusion of
seeing works as a necessary part of salvation. Indeed, the explantion based on Jes.
2:18 that moral actions prove faith is indeed true as far as it goes, but it does not tell
the whole story of the marvelous relation between works and salvation. The problem
is that by viewing works only as the proof of salvation one leaves open the logical
possibility for assuming that salvation is possible even if works do not follow.
However. salvation that does not manifest itself in works is no salvation at all The
‘account of Zacchaeus. I think. points with significant insight to the relationship
between salvation and day-to-day living
aeZacchaeus' “lost” condition included his social rejection. lack of self-respect,
Gishonest business practices and callousness toward the poor, as well as his lack of
fear for God. But when he heard from Jesus the call to repentance, open confession,
‘and restitution, hatred and bitterness aad the long cherished love of money were cast
Gut of his soul, These elements Zacchaeus replaced with the fear of God, the love of
justice and the spirit of kindliness. Salvation, then. to Jesus meant what it did to an
vider prophet, “to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.”
(Micah 63). Zacchaeus’ salvation appears in no mean way to be related to his new
commitment to financial integrity and his merciful regard for the poor. Though this
hardly suggests salvation by works, it is perhaps one of the clearest examples of the
inseparability of faith and works.
Just as God's grace demands man’s response in faith for salvation. divine erare
Beyond the level of salvation demands that the life of faith be one of good works. In
regard to material goods, God has seen fit to supply the needs of men in abundance
Iadeed, the phenomenon of prosperity, wherever itis found, is an indication of God's
overflowing love for mankind. He provides more than is required for the satisfaction
men, and thus some may live in abundance. Ceriainly God's
provision is sufficient for all men, but in no way should this be construed as &
Fustification for wealth accumulation when the needs of others have not besa
Witisfied. God's gracious gift of material provision is not to be stored (Matt. 6:19) but
dispensed to those who have need. God has put money at man's disposal and economic
goods have the potential for providing for those who are not directly able to work for
{Rem or who do not have them. The position of Scripture, therefore, demands that
any excess resources (profits) be dispensed to those in need. Material goods do have @
place in the kingdom, but the demands of the kingdom call for each person to view
Bie cesources from a spiritual perspective (Matt. 19:16-30). One's spiritual service also
involves commitment of one’s material possessions.
Hence, the picture given by the NT regarding the Christian's use of financial
Pesources is one of faithful stewardship. God has chosen men as his agents for
distributing the wealth of his gracious provision to other men. In this light one
‘night gain the proper perspective on the legitimacy of private ownership of
property. Properly ownership is not ultimately an inherent right of man. Tis
Priker a privilege given to man by God, to be used for purposes according to the
sce will, Property ownership does not carry with it the right of arbitrary vse of,
that property, for the good of others is the controlling concern. The possession of
private properly may or may not best serve the purposes of the people of God. THe
Fhportant thing is that the stewardship of one's God-given resources be in line with
God's purposes for meeting the needs of others.
irks
Concluding
‘The NT admonitions regarding wealth constitute a stinging indictment of professing
The Niane who have given in to the lure of financial security through wealth
cormulation, The accumulation of material resources may make good sense from the
Standpoint of one’s personal finances. but it cannot be reconciled with the relevant
Mitecching, Such accumulation is desteuctive to one's individual spiritual Life and
additionally hinders the equitable distribution of God's gracious blessing to needy
tinistinns and non-Christians around the world, The amassing of personal wealth for
23
9one’s own selfish use indicates that one’s service is to money and not to God (Matt
624)
In terms germaine to present-day economic fife, one might say that the NT
distinguishes significantly between (1) the consumption of material goods and (2) the
accumulation of savings/invesiments that serve in themselves to increase one’s
personal financial vorth. Consumption of material goods (without, of course, an
idolatrous devotion to it) is quite proper and certainly to be enjoyed. But the NT
soundly denounces the suggestion that one may live in the Kingdom and accumulate
‘Wealth for one’s selfish use at the same time. From the NT perspective, Christians may
serve only as conduits by which God's gracious material provision is equitably
distributed to the world. Selfish accumulation of wealth must be viewed as
disobedience to Christ's commands and distrust of God's promise to supply the needs of
those who have faith in him. The essential point of this article, then, is that
accumulating wealth is dangerous and risky, since many human beings are tempted
Wo trust money and resources more than they trust God. Responding to the desires to
build up a fortune may in fact blind one to Christian teachings. This is not to say that
all rich people are therefore sinners; but it does imply that their wealth may
constitute a temptation as well asa responsibility.