acc journal of theology 2.2

8/7/2019 ACC Journal of Theology 2.2

1/25

Autumn 198"1of Theology for the Apostolic Chris1Jan Church

.,,~-.;..

1ST DRIVING THE MONEY-CHANGERS FROM THE TEMPLE. lG&:i

\I[ P f ! J r g ) @ ~I~m@ 4}

m U D @ ] ~ [ f Q r r t l @~ ~ fD U D ~ ~ r; l P m @ u ~@ a 1 l m u ~@@tJ~@~ 1 P 0 @ D -,


2/25

The ACCJour.a. is published quarterly by the editors. The views expressed inarticles or letters published in the Journal are those of the authors and are notnecessarily those of the editors, regular contributors, reviewers, or other members ofthe Apostolic Christian Church (ACC).The articles an d letters selected by the editorsare beJievedto be relevant to ACe members and generally helpful in improving thequality of church thought, discussion and practice.

SubscriptionsSubscriptions to the ACe Journal are $ ~ . O O (U.s.) per 4 { issues. A U issues of thecurrent volume - w . i l l be indued in the subscription rate. Volume 2 begins with theSummer iss ue of 1984 and includes the Autumn and Winter issues of 1984 along withthe 1985 Spring issue. Volume 3 begins with the 1985 Summer issue. Subscriptionrenewals are due at that time.

All correspondence with the ACCJour.al should be sent to either editor:Jim Fodor381~ 114A SL, Apt. 301Edmonton. AlbertaCANADA 16J IN~

Dennis Feucht~27~ Crown S1 .West Linn, O RUS.A 97068Also, letters or articles for p ub lic atio n in the A C e Journal should be sent to either ofthe above addresses. for more i nf ormat io n on A C e Jour.al publication guidelines,please request an "Information for Aa~JOll.rl1ill Authors" brochure.

Regular COJltribulors/RevieYersRollen Easter; T remont, ILJim Fodor; Edmonton. Alta.Dav id K ap usin sk i. N orto n.O llDan Simon;

John R. Swin fo rd ; P asad en a, cADennis Feucht, Portlan d. ORJoseph Haring, Pasadena, CAIssaquah. W Ao j - . '

COTer

"Christ Driving th e Money-Changers From the Temple." Rembrandt. 163:),..The~Temple is to be for people like the tax-collector who came' to pray and' seek'forgiveness (L t. 1 8:1 1-1 4), but Jewish avarice had destroyed this purpose by making'it into a den for robbers. The legitimate sale of sacrificial animals was accolnpan iedby money-grabbing and commercial rivalry. Jesus protested this din of commercethat made difficult the praying of Gentiles in the outer court (cf Is. 56:7) and heprotested the exorbitant rates of exchange for foreign currency and high prices fotsacrifices (cf Jer 7:1l). . " '.


3/25

EditorialHowever much we would like to keep economics and faithseparate, the Gospel forges them together, establishes amysterious but real connection between them, and asks for acontinual reckoning from each of us concerning the obstacleswe place in the way of their unity. To a large extent. then, thisissue of the ACC Jou rn al is devoted to the .theme of therelationship between economics and the Christian life.The money issue has once more begun to simmer, fueled by inflation, fluctuatinginterest rates. an unstable economy, and the disconcerting fact that the lifestyle wewere 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 asChristians are not well-reasoned ones. The tendency of most Christians is to faU intoline behind one of two extremes when it comes to money. On the one hand there arethose who look upon money, wealth and property as a great distraction and burdenfor the Christian. They are rather fond of quoting the Matthean text which says that"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enterthe kingdom of God"(Matt. 19:24). On the other hand, there are those who espouse avery optimistic and positive view of wealth. They claim that a hefty bank balance is asure sign of God's favor and blessing--only look at righteous men like Abraham orJobl Indeed, there seems to be some truth on both sides, but J think we all realize howeasy it is for a Christian to slip into extreme and inflexible positions when it comes tomoney.The Christian gospel has some things to say about money. First of all, it teUs us thatmoney itself is not the issue; the real issue is how we get it and "Whatwe do with it. Inother words, money may not be intrinsically evil, but in its comings and goings inour lives it is frequently the root of evil. Money, of course, is a human invention thatfacilitates the transfer and distribution of goods and, for the Christian at least, it mustalso always be at the service of the Gospel.Howwe get money may be stated in negative terms; for example, "Thou Shalt not steal"(Ex. 20:1~. However, "Thou shalt not steal" is more than an injunction againstoutright tbeft. It is also a directive to employees to pay just wages and to employers todo a fait day's work. Moreover, there are even subtler ways of stealing, such asdepriving the poor of access to what belongs to them, and of carelessly using upresources, thus making them unavailable to succeeding generations. How we acqireour 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 with our wealth is equally important. D o we tithe only a certain percentof our income or are we expected to be ready to give it all away? Just what kind ofgiving is expected by the Gospel? Jesus may have given the best answer to the "howmuch" question when he urged the rich young man (Matt. 19:21) to rid himself ofwhatever stood in the way of acknowledging that Jesus alone sufficed. The costlinessof Christian discipleship boils down to precisely that detaching ourselves from

2


4/25

material goods, from prestige, power, advancement, or whatever else stands in theway of attachment to Christ. In other words, the Christian gospel is, at its heart, aboutloyalties and dependencies, and Jesus set down some rather specific guidelines forthose who would be his disciples: divest, deaccumulate. resist the urge to consumePerhaps thinking about money, property, possessions and wealth wHI help us, in asort of indirect way, to re-focus on the issues of trust and security. It is hoped thatthis issue of the A C C Joura.l will help to further that end.The author of the second article, "The Christian and Material Resources", isgratefully 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 Fodorco-editorA Call For Letters

The A C C Journal is intended to be a vehicle by which Apostolic Christians can sharewith others the results of their own biblical studies or essays on the application ofChristian beliefs to practical life Many of us tend to be hesitant to write somethingfor publication, and good materials are consequently not made available to others Ifyou have something that could be of possible interest to others in the church. put Itin writing and submit it to one of the editors (listed above). We will be glad to workwitb you in preparing your contribution for publication If you are not sure thatyour material is appropriate, write a brief (one-page) summary and submit it forcomment; we will happily explore its possibilities with youHere are some ideas for possible A C e Journal articles:

STUDENTPAPERS - Student papers wriuen for classes in the humanities andsocial sciences (such as psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology,history, education, and so forth) may be re-assessed in terms of theirimplications for the Christian faith and presented as articles .... BIBLESTUDYNOTES- Many people prepare long and bard for Bible studies intheir local church. The notes and/or outlines of such studies could be modifiedinto the form of an essay or article

3


5/25

--------------------------~-------------------- - ---

if STIMULATINGDISCUSSIONS- Often Christians find themselves immersed ininvigorating discussions over matters that are crucial to their faith. The"results" or iDsights gained from such exchanges would be valuable to sharewith others.if BOOKREVIEWS- Reading of fine Christian books may be of especial benefitto you and you may wish to direct others to invaluable sources. Critiques wouldalso be worthwhile. .

Dear Editor;J have just received Volume 2 Number I, Summer 1984 issue of the ACe Journal and Jcould not help notice the artwork on the cover. Unfortunately, no mention is madeeither of its meaning or its artist. I am wondering if you could enlighten me on whatthis drawing represents.I notice the words "ACC"in the large rectangle. This, I tate it, is our church'sdesignation--Apostolic Christian Church Everything within this large rectangle is acircle with connecting lines. Below this there are hexagons, squares and tr-ianglesand so an joined to each other with lines. A few lines join to the larger rectangledesignated "ACC."Does this mean that the ACChurch is reaching out towards othersand sharing its faith with the unconverted as weJJ as being in fellowship with its ownmembers? Or is the AC Church entering the computer age along with the vastnetwork of communication systems? Could this be a symbol of what the ACeJournalstands Ior?

Richard RobertsToronto. Ontario

Dear Editor;In reading Bro. Dennis' editorial. Christian faith and Politics (Volume 2 Number 1.Summer 1980(,pp 2-3), one is left feeling that Christian involvement in politics ought

4


6/25

to be a mystical type of involvement that "transcends the powers of this age." Alogical area of concern, then, might be the type of works likely to proceed from theexercise of such a faith.Before progressing further it will be advantageous to define terms. The following aredefined in the Thordike-:Barnhart Advanced Dictionary (Revised, 1979) Scott.Foresman and Company: Glenview, Illinois.politic: adi.: 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 differe.nce inmeaning. Additionally, the term "love" wilJ be operationally defined as:those actions on the part of the believer that manifest responsibility forthe spiritual and physical well-being of others, to the ezclusion ofcoercive activities. Spiritual and physical well-being can only bedetermined from Scripture and is. at its core, the expression of God'swillin a person's life as he experiences salvation. growth, and service, byfaith, in accordance with God'sWord.It is' noteworthy that government was the second of the three major institutionsfounded by God+the family, the government, and the church. The Divine mandatefor government was handed down to man through Noah (Gen. 9:5,6) and what wasSignificant about this mandate was that, prior to the giving of the Law, Godrequiredcapital punishment for murder. What may disturb some people is that Godreservedall other judgement for Himself until the time of the Law. Even the heinous crimes ofthe men of Sodaro and Gomorrah were not to be dealt with by human agents, but byDivine retribution Lot. of course, was responsible [or reproving their evil deeds,which he failed to do, and by abdicating his responsibility (that is, love for thepopulation of his adopted nation) he abandoned them to God's judgement even thoughhe himself was saved.With the giving of the Law came additional enforcement duties for the agents ofTheocracy. Crimes such as adultery, theft. and Sabbath-breaking were to be handledby the rulers of the people under the aegis of the High Priest. The inscription, "Inthose days there was no king in Israel every man did that which was right in hisown eyes" (Judges 2125), indicates not only the potential for anarchy, but also thepotential+even under the restrictions of the Law--for greater freedom to do the willof God. Since the Law no longer binds the Christian, he is thus restored to a pre-Lawcondition 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 (J Cor. 7:21-23)because it enabled hlim to be totally open to the expression of love through the HolySpirit's leading. The more willing a person is to be lead of God, the more he desiresthe freedom to exercise that leading: the more self-willed a person is, the moredesirous 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 slaveis not as responsible as a free man.We also need to be concerned with various kinds of government. all of which haveexpanded from the Noachic Covenant Autocratic governments all function the sameway--Ihose who are governed have no civic responslbliry to exercise love, althoughthe Christian under such a government retains the moral responsibiliry entrustedhim by the Lord. Governments which function by the exercise of electoral fran chise.however, extend the responsibility of governing to the electorate Under universal

5


7/25

sufferage every citizen is Caesar.Such a situation throws the Christian into a potentially dangerous position. Not onlymust he render to caesar the things that are Caesar's (he is Caesar t) , but he mustrender to God the things that are God's. If a hypothetical human governmentcomposed of Christians should come to power. then they would be faced with theexercise of the principles expounded in Romans 13 . This hypothetical situationnotwithstanding, to abstain from participating in the political process underuniversal sufferage would be, for the Christian, to place himself in voluntarybondage to others. This is a condition which the Apostle Paul preferred not to choosebecause 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 forChristian activity in politics. Because nations have human governments (as dochurches), they are sometimes in error and do not always espouse God's cause. Insuch situations it is the individual Christian's duty to become involved as theconscience 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 theopportunity, they consequently have no right to speak out on issues with which theydisagree 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.It must be emphasized that these considerations can only be studied as they influencethe individual church member. The cburch collectively has no franchise andsubsequently cannot become involved in partisan politics. Its function is to ensurethat sound doctrine is presented to the individual member so that he can makechoices consistent with that doctrine. The church cannot deal with government perse. but must deal with the issues as seen through God's Word. What doctrinal standwill be taken regarding abortion, euthanasia, parental rights, legality of churcheducational ministries, and a host of other issues? From that stand the individualmember must go forward to exercise his franchise or, better still, become activelyinvolved in politics himself in order to prevent the passage of legislation whicbwould be contrary to God'sWord or hinder the ministry of the church.It is not necessarily true that all choices for a political involvement assume rejectionof Christ's principles. Abigger problem possibly hes in the fact that most Christianshave fallen for the humanist/socialist view that government is to provide materialgood and/or influence the marketplace so as to restrict selfishness. The church hasfailed to speak out on "political" issues and thereby has left the individual Christian toseek instruction concerning these matters from the established political machinery.Our politics must indeed be different from that of this present age, but jt mustnevertheless address the same concerns.The Christian church did not defeat the Roman Empire; the Roman Empire infiltratedthe church and emasculated it because individual Christians did not have the freedomto resist evil politically. The modern example of the Polish trade union movement is asecular and humanistk one. and should not be compared to Christianity. CertainlyChristians must be concerned with such issues as "political freedom" and even"national self-determination", otherwise without such provisions such things as"courage when threatened" and "suffering for righteousness" would be forced uponthe Christian when he could be spending his time spreading the Gospel instead. TheChristian must be involved in applying Christ's principles to politics so the- spread ofthe Gospel will not be hindered. He should take his vacation from politicalresponsiblity only when the Devil takes his.

6


8/25

Jim HrubikEdmonton, Alberta

Reflections on Christian Faith and Politics

The mindset of modern. Western nations in general bas been to establish governmentwithout regard for the Theocratic model established by God in the Bible. Theocracyasserts 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 hostof political models and archetypes have emerged in our world that have noconnection with this Theocratic ideal--the "constitutionalism" of John Locke whichhas bad an emmense impact on American political thought is just one example.Similarly, many other political ideas have issued from the Renaissance, theReformation, and the Enlightenment. everything from "Social Contract" theory toMachiavellian amoral political strategems: that is, the belief that in the politicalrealm "the end justifies the means:' Some political ideas, of course, did affirm theconcept of a divine order in the affairs of human government. But by and largepolitical philosophies (particularly French political philosophies) espoused that manis the incontrovertible measure of all things and that governments need notencoumber themselves with "spiritual" questions.

For many centuries man has struggled fervently to devise a political ideology thatwould 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 countlesssocio-political upheavals and atrocities that testify to man's incessant aUempts toimplement yet another "new idea." Unfortunately, much of Western politicalthought has developed in a vacuum of humanism to the exclusion of scripturalteaching or Christian input. This is true despite the fact that political theory hasconspicuously marched hand in hand with "Religion:'

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 alwaysbeen something unpalatable about politics for the Christian. Consequently,withdrawal and avoidance has been the usual response. Christians were willing toendure almost anythIng. even direct assaults from a hostile political regIme (whIch,in most cases, led to martyrdom), but they consistently refused to compromise theirfaith by "losing themselves" in political concerns. Nevertheless, of the three majorpolitical uprisings in the modern, Western world--the Russian, the French and theAmerican Revolutions--only the last has established itself as a basis of reform withGod as central to the affairs of human government. This system of governmentstands unique in the world today. Beliefs in such values as "inalienable rights"granted to each human being by a benevolent Creator has provided the undergirdingprinciple of American constitutionalism. With such provisions as these and variousother opportunities to redress grievances, the question that forces itself upon us isthis: Should Christians living within such political structures exercise thesefreedoms, make redress for grievances or hold political office? In other words. towhat extent should the Christian be involved in government?These Questions. of course. are not easily answered But often a glance backwards can

7


9/25

be of help. Historical precedent has been set by none other than our own brethren.Our forefathers demonstrated a rich heritage of political involvement, particularly inSwitzerland. In July of 1843 Samuel Froelich and a group of Swiss church leadersunequivocally affirmed that, by the grace of God and the leading of the Spirit. theywould resist. the state dictum requiring all children til be taught in the publicinstitutions and that they be given a thorough indoctrination in the state-approvedreligion of Catholicism. Their position progressed from redressing grievances toactuar non-compliance With the repressive state laws. Persecution followed and soonthe gentle waves of the Swiss alpine lakes were washing ashore the bodies of thosebrave Nazareen Christians forcibly drowned because of their overt politica!involvement. Invariably persecution has within its very being. a throbbing politicalheart that is carefully con cealed by a well tailored overcoat! It comes as no surprise,then. that politics bas left a bad taste in the mouths of most Christians=our fellowshipnot excluded.Perhaps this rather unsavory taste of politics has somewhat dissipated from themouths of Christians this side of the Atlantic by the divison of church and state in ourOWnland. The framers of the American Constitution thought it best to keep religionand 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,with some commendable insight. that the two remain celibate and distinct than toconsumate the union and pro generate an offspring named "persecution."Nonetheless, it remains to be seen whether it is in fact better to have the state turn aknowingly blind eye to religious matters or to install within the highest reaches ofgovernment those people whose thrust in politics is to propogate the maladies ofsecular 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 ingovernment to the spiritually inept who themselves wish to eliminate Christianvalues?

8

Once again, we must turn to an important contribution of the past to help us see ourway c1early--the Reformation concept of the dichotomy of society. The Reformersbelieved that Christians were governed by higher dictums than secular lawand needno law to maintain an orderly society since the Christian values of Jove, charity,obedience til the king, and good works were sufficient to benefit government andsociety. Of course, a good number in society were unsaved and of necessity needed tobe subjugated by secular law and punished by civil authorities so as to maintain orderand suppress evil. This conviction may work provided that those in government werethemselves quite neutral and the law was equally and without preference enjoinedupon society as a whole (Rom. 13:1-7; I Pet. 2:13-17>. The situation today, however, isconsiderably different. In almost every case the ungoldly have a stranglehold onvarious levels of government and their aspirations are to manipulate legislation forpurposes that further the cause of secular hum.anism. In other words, a distinct"anti-Christian" mentality grips the very realm of politics in our Western culture.Weare definitely living in a post-Christian era.Jesus himself acknowledged the fact that Satan was the ruler of this world (Cf. Matt'(:8f.). The Apostle Paul also was cognizant of the very real power that stood behindworld historical processes (Eph. 6:12). Can there be a synthesis of the precepts of Godand the mammon of worldly principalities? Hardly! Of course, there is amplescriptural evidence that men of Godsuch as Abraham, Joseph and Daniel offered, byGod's power, considerable direction in the political and economic fife of 'thenations." Many of God's children made representation to political figures. Indeed,governments may be ordained of God but, not unlike the institution of marriage, it is


10/25

a temporal institution destined -to become obsolete in the kingdom to come. Christianinput into government, therefore. may serve the purpose of maintaining orenhancing social order, values, morality. the common good or the work ethic, but itsmain thrust will serve nothing more than that of a spiritual restraining force. Inorder to live peaceably and orderly, one must uphold biblical principles lest societydegenerate into chaos and moral turpitude. The law of entropy in thermodynamicsholds emminently true for society as a whole at least as much as it holds for molecularstructures. It is evident that without energetic Christian representation to and ingovernment 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 greateradversity; namely, sin Indeed religious opportunists and political strategists haverepeatedly used religion as a vehicle with which to govern. However. the true bodyof believers have Iikewise always laid down their lives because of their fidelity toChrist. They valued the love of a Savior more than the seductive enticements ofpolitical compromise.Poland does not represent a valiant spiritual struggle over militarism. The purposeof Christianity is not class. economic or political struggle. nor is it the suppression ofcertain regimes, The truth of the matter is that man suffers the plight of sin-vamatter entirely beyond the realm of political or economic innovation. To free fromoppression or debt or to free from sin may be analagous but it is not equivalent. Forfrom a common matrix of sin there arose chronic. insoluble strife and the oppressionof irredeemable debts. Such a "system" still dominates the world today. Jesus himselfacknowledged its reality and the apostle Paul gave it definition: ".._we wrestle notagainst flesh and blood. but against principlalities, againsts powers. against therulers of the darkness of this world. against spiritual wickedness in high places"(Eph_6:12).Economics. therefore. may be the solder that binds the tin can of politics together. butthe heat of man's ideologies and corruption is melting it apart. Gluttonous materialconsumption and the wreathing hands of those that readily finance this vice onlyserve to preserve a negative and ultimately debilitating system. In due course. thisperpetuates financial enslavement through debt. Unfortunately and all too oftenChristians become entangled within these webs of political-economic captivity.Instead of succumbing to such a system. Christians ought to reform their finances toeliminate debt as much as they should strive to reform politics--since both go hand inhand.A demonic spirit of autonomous freedom. situation ethics, be.Iief in the perfection ofman, secular humanism. amoral education, and sensual entertainment is slowlydisintegrating this generation and fragmenting society. Ironically. these pestilentvalues are enthusiastically championed by the media. the academic world andgovernment legislation. A political solution is like prescribing a band-aid for arapcciously malignant cancer within the body of society. It is time for biblicalprinciples in government! Politics may be the finger in the leaky dike but it is Godhimself 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 pohtics-valthough this does notabsolve us from our civil responsibilities. Jesus had much to say about our role inserving our fellow man and our witness in society. Nevertheless. man's condition isprimarily spiritual and not political. All political systems have failed or come short ofmeeting man's condition- As Christians. then, our primary goal is to win souls notvotes' The Gospel is "apolitical" in regards to salvation. and it is our perugative 1 -0

9


11/25

reap a harvest for Godregardless of the condition of the political field. A secondarygoal is to establish as favorable an environment as possible for the freedom ofworship. the education of our children and the propagation of the gospel. In thisregard, politics is an open and constructive option for the Christian.As Christians we cede that a person-to-person ministry ought to be taught and Iivedin 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 withinthe confines of our educational system. the healing arts, yes. even within themultiple tiers of government. Forthrightly. we must admit that the private ministryof the Gospel is easier and, with few exceptions. exempt from danger. The publicministry, on the other hand, is frought with immense challenges, resistances and theever present danger of persecution. As the "light" and "salt" of this world, let usrealize that God'sWord indeed applies to the common good of society and government(Matt. ':13.14J Of course, it is safer to be quiet and remain unnoticed within thecomforts of our home than to step out publicly. to change social policy or let ourlives be savored by others. Certainly persecution exists as a realistic sequel; Jesusforwarned us that this would be the case. But this reality affords us no reason toretreat from the task before us.

Louis GajdosEdmonton. Alberta

Toward a Mutual UnderstandingOne of the most constructive things which may have occurred since the beginning ofthe Ace Jour.al is the flurry of efforts to clarify what "theology" actually is for theApostolic Christian Church and to determine to what extent it can be tolerated withinits boundaries. No doubt this stir of activity rests smack in the middJe of the statedintentions 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 ACCjournal) that the co-editors are also themselves rethinking the questions. I feelcompelled, therefore, to try to clarify some of my own positions in regard to the A C Cjournal. to speak to a number of the articles contained in the same, and to answerGreg johnson's response to my earlier letter [as found in Vol. 1.No.3, Winter 1984, pp.7-9).Because of my stated objection to the excessive reliance of some of the Journarsauthors on theological writings outside Apostolic Christian circles, 1was content toregretfully ignore the ACe Journal (I write ..regretfully" because I then believedthat most of the Journal's intentions were needed and that such a publication couldserve a valuable purpose.) However, I have changed my position tentatively as aresult of a very fruitful conversation 1 had with Dennis Feucht at the 1984 EasternCamp. This, combined with the fact that 1 have now followed the treatment of"theology and fraternization" issues in the last three issues of the journal, allowsme to formulate a considered response to this issue. Let me begin with a homemadeparable.

10


12/25

The position of the ACCJournal can be closely alligned with the person of Jacob inthe above story. For there is an implicit assumption in all the Journal's articlesabout theology that unless one studies theology one is anti-intellectual. Yet at thesame time the examples of serious theology that the Jouraal exhibits are absolutelyunremarkable. uninteresting. and inconsequential. Furthermore. what Jim Fodorseems to allow as one aspect of theology is already commonly practiced among most ofour membership He says:

Eli and Jacob vere journeying toward a little village which both of themwere intent on reaching. Presently they came upon a fork in the road.This presented them with an unforseen difficulty. Which way were theyto go now? Eli. being the oldest. first looked down the left fork andspotted the tops of some buildings which. he naturally concluded werethe houses of that village. Immediately he started down the left fork. butJacob quickly called out. "Hold on. not so fast! How do you know thatthose buildings are those of the village we seek? Weneed to explore theright fork to make sure." But Eli was quite convin ced that no further"exploration" was needed because it was quite obvious that the buildingshe spotted were those of their desired destination. But Jacob insisted andso. after much debate. Jacob set out on his expedition while Eli patientlywaited for him in the fork in the road.After some thirty days and a hundred miles of valking Jacob finallyreturned 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 resumedtheir journey. Eli puzzled to himself why Jacob had to do so muchexploration to see the obvious. But at the same time Jacob kept onmumbling to himself that Eli did not reaUy appreciate thinking about orexploring other alternatrves

Without the built-in corrective of a mature theology (which is itselfconstantly subject to critical revision). the preachers and teachers ofthe church can readily stray from their fidelity to the Word of God. Inthis perspective theology is at once the intellectual expression of thechurch's repentance and the permanent possibility of the church'sreform. lACe Jouraal Vol. 1 No.4. p.8]Tosuggest that one who does not participate in the formal study of theology--or evenobjects to it+is necessarily more inclined to ..... stray from their fidelity to the Wordof God" is. to say the least condescending and insulting to the spirituallyright-thinking brothers and sisters who have developed the Apostolic ChristianChurch to where it presently stands. The above parable is intended to suggest thatmany of our members may lack any formal or intellectual training in theology andyet develop. over time. an excellent understanding of Scripture from the Bible itselfIn fact. ] might even suggest that the Word, being so long and so thorough andcovering so much time. makes a complete study of the Bible a highly productiveenterprise in its own appropriate context.

11


13/25

In Jim Fodor's Spring 198~editorial he makes a number of very honest concessions:Unfortunately, theological study has not always been useful and thesuspicions and fears of the majority are not altogether withoutsubstance. [p.21His considerable display of the apparatus of exegetical science onlyproduces paralyzing and unhappy trivialities. and the inner muscularstrength of the lively young Christians present is regrettably squeezedto death. in the formal armor of his abstact ideas. !p.3JLittle wonder that theologians came to be associated in the minds of ACswith the 'scribes' of the NewTestament--enemies of Christ. [p.4]In some ways these early fears of and objections to 'theology' wererightfully grounded. [p.5] .I appreciate the ingenuousness of these reflections. By violating the first rule ofdebating (which is 10 concede nothing). he has demonstrated a Christian spirit ofhonesty. openness, a strong desire to build understanding and to be constructiveHowever. in the midst of aJJ these good reasons to discard much of theology hesuggests that there are moments of good. But isn't this something like standing nextto a landfill and Ieoking for something good to eat?' This. it seems to me. is analagousto standing next to a landfill and looking for something good to eat. When you set atruck that you know comes from a good restaurant you run over to it quickly after ithas 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. I think it can be summed up partiallyby his own words:An authentically Christian theology. therefore. is always churchtheology, that is, theology of and for the people of God. It is aconstructive and systematic exposition of the faith by which the churchlives and which provides it with the critical tools for judging thefaithfulness of its Iife and witness. Such a conception of the theologicaltask is rigorously functional rather than speculative. [p.8JI feel 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 haveto deliberate over Greek or Hebrew perspectives or theological positions of the pastcenturies to guide the church on a safe course for this century is. however. franklyuntrue in my experience and in my judgement. It suggests a far too fragile ortenuous dispensation of grace and divine leading for the "ordinary" believer. JimFodor also correctly demonstrated an understanding of this fact when he wrote. " ...the early generations of ACsdemonstrated a strong belief in and reliance on the HolySpirit in the believer which would enable him to understand the Scriptures withoutspecial learning, and also to interpret them afresh, independently from otherteachers." [p. 5JThis remark brings us dose to the crux of the matter Perhaps the Apostolic

12


14/25

Quite frankly, I fear that the impulse to turn to formalized theology. though motivatedby the highest intentions, is destined to frustrate or dull our receptivity to thedirections of the Holy Spirit. Feeling moved of the Holy Spirit to speak to someone andlearning that they had just been waiting for such an encounter is rar more dramaticand perhaps even more meaningful than learning that, for example, "1. Greek (ofGnostic tradition) would say: Man has a body; man has a soul (whereas a Hebrew wouldsay:] Man is a body; man is a soul." [ A c e jearnal. Vo!.Z No. z . p.171

Christians of my generation. and the older geaersticas who were not involved in theEastern European churches during the unrest of the first and second World Wars.have a shorter or less dra.JD.a.ticpersonal history of depending upon the Holy Spirit tocarry them through issues and upheavels which they did not totally understand.Consequently. we have no complete understanding of how depeAdable andcontemporary this guidance of the Holy Spirit can actually be. Lacting thisknowledge. we turn to what has been our culturally ingrained solution--"morestudy." Weare led to believe that "a thorough study" will invariably reveal the truth.The entire history of the Bible suggests to me that it is not in "study" that oursalvation is assured but in the leading of the Holy Spirit. I am aware that theScripture does say. "Study to shew thyself approved unto God,a workman that needethnot to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (II Timothy 2:1~);nevertheless, it was not study that saved the apostle Paul from death, but themiraculous working of the Spirit through a young boy. Nor was it Paul's magnificentunderstanding ofveather conditions and navigation that saved his life, but the quietspeaking of the Holy Spirit assuring him that though they would be shipwrecked AOone would lose their life.

At this point I do not want anyone to hastily jump to 1\ conclusion that is beyond whatI intend to say. Certainly I feel that many of our members can. be fantastic Biblescholars and can write papers for the A ce journal that will tend to guide themembership at large. 1 believe they are already well prepared for this task andshould be given a forum in which to do this. To this extent I will be enthused aboutthe utility IUlddistribution of the A C C jourA.1. All such materials contributed fromstudent papers, Bible study notes. stimulatin g discussions, book reviews. andprofessional activities are indeed rich ground for reading that will make adifference.. [Cf. Vol. 1 No. Z, Fall 1983. p.9] However, material contributed fromformal theological studies is the death of the jourAat if by "theological studies" onemeans to go beyond Bible scholarship alone and include the treatment of otherreligious bodies and/or theologians from outside the Apostolic Christian Churches.Finally, let me address Greg JohAson's letter [Cr.Vol. 1 No.3. pp.1-9}. I regret writingabout my frustrations concerning the lack. of articles for the lIessencer in myorigina1letter. I do not feel the two publieatiens (the lIessenler and the ACCjournal) will ever compete because their focus is, as has been correcUy pointed out.quite dilferent. In some ways the format that Greg describes as "forum" for the ACCJournal is much more preferable to me than that of the Messenler. I believe thetradition of the MesseA.er--far from my editorial policy--forbids me frompursuing that provocative and interesting path. However, I notice several disturbingwords that keep cropping up in some of the jourA.l's articles. words like

13


15/25

"arrogance," "maturity," "closed minds," and "anti-intellectual." None of these (withthe possible exception of "maturity") are true of any of the participants in thisdiscussion. As I get to know the participants better I am impressed with the realpossibility of coming to a constructive understanding--provided that we are willingto pay the dues: to speak and listen and write and read.Concerning the matter of fraternization, let me begin by saying that there is noquestion that a significant number of Apostolic Christian Churches male it a crucialpoint of doctrine. I am quite aware that not all of our churches do so, however,judging from some of my mail since my original letter to the Jouenal. What is lessclear, though, is what is meant by "fraternization." It seems that in those churcheswhere this doctrine is strongly emphasized they mean, at the very least. thatmembers of the Apostolic Christian Churches shall not attend other churches forregular worship services, or attend non-denominational revival meetings.evangelistic speakers who may be invited to some haH or auditorium, and otherchurch-like functions. The purpose of this, as far as I can determine. is to avoidchallenges 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 tosome of our churches that treated the issue of "fraternization" lightly. Many of themhave since left our feJlowship Here again, do not misunderstand me. I am not sayingthat they are no longer Christians. I am saying that tbey are no longer of any help toour churches because they have taken their talents elsewhere. That is bothunfortunate 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 personallytaken a rather wide interpretation of "fraternization". For example. I do not set muchdifference between attending another church's worship services and listening toanother church's radio or T.V. program. Yet, I know some who do not support"fraternization" defjned as attending other churches who do listen to radio programssponsored by other denominations. For that matter, I know of very few people whohave never read some kind of guide to studying the Bible or some kind ofcommentary. That, too, may be considered by some to be "fraternization" or perhapsas "the beginnings of theology."Those churches who do oppose fraternization do so not as an act of "arrogance andparanoia" as Greg johnson speculates. Rather their's is a passive stand to peacablyavoid the confusion that has been experienced by people when family membersfraternize. Fraternization is an enemy of unity; fraternization does not promoteunity. 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 theApostolic Christian Churches is very unique and worthy of preserving. Of course,this faith is fragile in a sense. It is like a candle of Iight in a blustery, stormy worldof spiritual hysteria. It nees a globe to both magnify the illumination and yet at thesame time to protect the flame from being snuffed out by the popular winds ofdoctrine that happen along.What, then, can we conclude after this rather extended discussion? I think we canconclude that the ACe Journal has some exciting prospects. As I have said, the

14


16/25

lIessealer is no place to hammer our doctrinal issues. However. this is not tosuggest that any such forum is not needed. Here is where the Journal may be ofsome help Our side of the Apostolk Christian Church--foHowing the split of1904--has followed a different path organizationally than the sister church. I thinkour path has been less successful. There appears to be something of a vacuum in theleadership: decisions made by the elders are not weH recorded for the guidance offuture decisions; the conclusions of elders' meetings are not well communicated to thegeneral 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 ACe Jouraal canbe a constructive force in guiding us to a more thoughtful organizational systemwhile at the same time remaining sensistive to the Holy Spirit's guiding, then morepower to it. If. on the other hand, it is going to be a printed version of Paul'sexperience with the philosophers on Mars Hill+that is. fulJ of sound and fury yetsignifying nothing--then it is worse than nothing at all. It will be a diversion of ourbetter efforts and noblier thoughts from our heavenly calling. My prayer then isthat this effort not be in vain. May the Lord guide this discussion so that we all maybecome well-tempered tools in His hands and not merely striving against andamongst ourselves. May the churches be profited by this dialogue and may we, theApostolic Christian Church, be among the remnant that will still have faith whenChrist returns.

Paul WeingartnerMansfield, Ohio

Money, Property Rights, and ChristianityJoe H.ring

Possessions pose perplexing dilemmas for many Christians: how should we usemoney .... and what about profits? Is it good to own property' Borrow money? Keeppossessions? Or should we give it all away to missionaries or to the churchfoundation? Conventional wisdom seems to extol the usefulness of money and otherforms of wealth. Economists and sociologists try to be neutral and analytical about itall. However, the Bible talks about wealth in a many-sided way. On the one hand itspeaks of wealth in terms of "the root of all evil." and, on the other. it advises us t.o"make friends of unrighteous mammon. In this article we wiH search out a balanced,Christian view of five economic topics of current interest to Christians: (1) money;(2) property; (3) possessions; (4) profits; and (~) giving.

15


17/25

Money

Although money has been called a source of power and security by worldly men forcenturies. many Christians and non-christians have professed skepticism about thevirtues associated with it. Economists (those who study the uses of money as part oftheir 'Work) define money as a "medium of exchange. and a standard of value," andrefer to it as a common denominator in measuring income, salaries, taxes, andexpenditures of all kinds.The Bible says that "the love of money (not money itself') is the root of all evil." andadvises us to pay tales by "rendering unto Caesar that which is caesar's." We arewarned, moreover, that" ... it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needlethan for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Yet in the parable of thetalents, Christ suggested that we use our riches to gain other riches, or at least depositthem with the money changers to earn interest.

,,..pertl

The upshot of this seems to be, at least in the language of business. that money shouldbe used constructively for the purposes for which it is intended=including payjngtaxes. 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 noneed to think more highly of it than it deserves. But 'Wecannot understand moneyfully without also examining the uses to which money can be put. and the things itwill buy, such as property and possessions.

Real estate and other forms of property have been traditionally treated as sources ofeconomic security. Buying a house or a piece of land is a common activity for a manseekin g to establish himself and to provide a measure of financial safety and stabilityfor his family. Thirty-year loans are frequently available to home-buyers. providedthey agree to sign a mortgage which pledges the property to the lender in case theborrower cannot make the payments he has promised.Economists describe land and buildings as capital goods which provide servicesHiving space or shelter} over a long period of time. In the case of office buildings orfactories. property is called a factor of production. Not all land, commercialbuildings. or houses yield services, as farmers with dry or rocky land weJI know;neither are factories or houses always in use. Economists tell us that land can bebarren. and that houses and buildings can be undesirable or even completelyunusable if they are not maintained and kept safe. For example. many .largeapartment buildings in slum areas and other unattractive parts of New York andother such large cities are actually abandoned by their owners. who can no longer

16


18/25

collect enough rent to pay the taxes and upkeep. Many empty storefronts are visiblein the downtown sections of almost every city in America as well. Thus not allproperty is useful Or' productive. and it may not be safe to use let alone afford asecure investment.The Bible contains numerous references to land and property. describing the customsand traditions associatedwith the holding of property. the rights ofla.tl.dInheritance.duties and privileges of landowners, and even the prices of some notable landparcels--the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas Iscariot and used to buy the potter'sfield, for instance (Matt. 27:3-10). But nowhere does the Bible call land "secure" orsomething to depend upon in time of financial need. Instead. there are numerousreferences and parables describing the use ofland to sustain life. to raise grain andpasture animals. Aswell there are somescriptural teachings about the misuse of landand buildings, as in the case of the rich man who wanted to tear down his barns andbuild bigger ones so he couldtake his ease. And there is the account of Ananias andSapphira who sold their land and then lied about the amount of money received. Godseems to be advising that property be usedwisely and prudently. Weshould thereforerecognize property as a responsibility. for we are to be stewards or judiciousmanagers. not careless landlords. of the property with which Godhas entrusted us.Passessi.asCars. horses. dogs. and animals of aJl kinds, clothing. jewelry. and other possessionsare sources of great comfort tomany people. They are convenient. 'Warm,responsive.protective. and beautiful. and they serve important functions. Some possessionsactual1y preserve lives. as does clothing in coldweather. It is possible. of course, tohave more possessions than we need to sustain Iife. Justification for holding manygoods has been offered in numerous ways. Extra clothing may be needed forespecially cold climates. or for travel to places that are wet or dry or where clothi.ngcannot be washed or cleaned readily. Airplanes. trucks, tools, instruments and manyother objects may be needed for emergencies or to perform a certain type of work.Uniforms may be required. Possessions may also be thought of as symbols of status.profession, rank or affluence.Economistswrite frequently of the uses and misuses of possessions. or capital goods.as they call them. But they refer to such items chiefly as factors of production. or assomething that is valued for its usefulness in producing goodsor providing servicesto human beings. Surplus or unnecessary goodshave little value in production. andmay in fact become expensive burdens for which to care.The Bible treats possessions much as it treats property. They are to be usedwisely byChristians whose main goal is to serve the Lord.. Thus possessions are tools orinstruments to enhance the effectiveness of Christian life. There are many warningsabout the dangers of excessive love of possessions,and their misuse by Christians whoset too much store in owning or possessing. or for whom riches of any type becomeidols or usurp God's place in one's life. Surely we should not set our hearts onpossessions.

17


19/25

Pr.fitsProfits have been variously defined as both good and evil by many observers, a goodnumber of whom seem to be either earning profits themselves or generating themfor others. Businessmen tell us that profits are necessary for economic survival.They are absolutely necessary for growth and prosperity. Without profitsbusinessmen would be unable to invest in the machinery and equipment thatmanufactures most of what we use and wear.Customers and employees of large corporations may speak resentfully of inordinateor excessive profits, suggesting that profits come out of the hands of low incomepeopJe This debate raged fiercely during the Great Depression of the 1930's amongsocialist writers and politicians. Communist writers as well have been critical ofprofits for over 100years.But economists have attempted to resolve the debate over profits by changing itsdefinition or, more precisely, by offering several definitions of profit--some ofwhieh are desirable and some not. Economic profit is more generally defined as"returns to capital which are higher than what is needed to gel investors to invest."More simply put, economic profits are "excess profits." Most would agree that abusinessman needs some return for his investment or work. Yet at the same timethey would not condone overly large profits. The technical question turns on howthe word "excessive" is defined.The parables of Jesus concerning talents and pounds seem to support the idea thatstewards and servants are duty-bound to make good use of what they have, gainingextra talents or pounds for their masters. Gain (or profit) will be rewarded by theirLord, and lack of gain will be criticized and even punished. We are instructed inthese parables to use or invest our gifts even if it seems risky to do so, lest even thatwhich we have be taken from us. The very minimum would be to lend our pounds tothe money changers, who would pay an interest return.The dilemma of profits is apparently resolved by the concept of stewardship: asservants of our Lord and Master we are given talents, pounds, and other forms ofriches to use profitably for Him. Stewards are custodians of things that belong tosomeone else, much like trustees of a foundation or executors of an estate. Theycarefully follow the instructions of the owner or donor of these goods, managingtheir use for the benefactor, not for themselves or for their personal satisfaction.The chief instruction book (the Bible) advises Christians to earn profits--even largeprofits--but to do so in such a 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 onlyholding them and deploying them as agents or stewards. They really belong to God.liiuia,Although donating money and other forms of wealth is recognized as sociallydesirable, conventional human wisdom points out that although it may be good forothers to contribute to nobler causes, one's personal fortunes may be enhanced bykeeping everything for oneself. But a mature Christian steward knows that he doesnot own anything in his own right; he recognizes that his Heavenly Father has

18


20/25

entrusted him with money, property, and possessions for a Hmited time, along withwritten instructions (in the Bible) on what should be done with them_ GOld'sstewardsneed only give full attention to reading the Bibleand praying inerder L O o know howto allocate these gifts for the Father_ Giving the Lord's money for the Lord's work islike spending your company's money on company business: if it goes in the rightamounts to the correct applications, then are we profitable servants.There is a large literature on tithing, on giving one-tenth of our income for theLord's work. The source of this literature can, of course, be traced back to the Bibleitself 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 tithemint 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 that100%of our income in fact belongs to God,and we are merely his representatives onearth. It is a weighty responsibliJity, and we all need God'shelp to bear it.

What then is the conclusion of the matter? The key word in Christian Economics is"stewardship." We should hold motley, property, and possessions as stewards oragents of the rightfuJ owner, God. The various forms of wealth should he put to use inGod's vineyard in such a way as to gain large profits for our Heavenly Father, andthen we should distribute these profits liberally and generously, as from the Fatherwho 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 ourMaster and King, which they do!

Tile [lirisUa ad Material Res n::es'YJi. F".rShould we be poor like Christ was poor. or is it permissible to berich? This paper will explore some aspects of material resourcesand other forms of wealth as it impacts on the Christian lifestyle.The companion article in this issue (by j. E. Haring) suggests thattrue Christians can be neither rich nor poor. since they are merelystewards of what Christ has allowed them to hold and/or beresponsible for. God"owns" all the things they have. In this essay,however, we wi11try to go beyond stewardship of God's riches to adiscussion of the motivations for accumulating wealth. In order todo so we need to bring together some of the prominent NewTestament teachings on the Christian's relation to wealth_ Theauthor's basic premise is that the very person and work of Christare at the root of a proper Christian attitude toward wealth and thatonly by recognizing this Christological foundation may one fullyappreciate the subtle dangers of selfish wealth accumulation.

19


21/25

-- --'_ - ._ . --."

lite Clarist.I.,ical Fa.adati sDiscussion of the ChristologicaJ basis of a proper Christian attitude toward materialwealth might best begin. with a word of caution. One must recognize that the NewTestament (NT) picture of Jesus as a man of limited means does not suggest that someform of asceticism is the only way to do the will of Godin regard to handling one'searthly goods. Jesus was not a rigorous ascetic and the gospel can no more be equatedwith the financial poverty of Jesus that it can be equated with the pain he endured onthe 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 isa powerful analogical relationship between the work of Christ and the Iife of theChristian.In the incarnation Christ became identified with man in order that man might be likeChrist One's personal acceptance of this identification means that he now shares theexperiences of human life with Christ himself. As evidenced by the temptation.suffering and death of Christ (Heb. 2:7-18), God has identified with the humansituation and this identification has serious implications for the Christian's materialpossessions. In 2 Cor. 8:1-1~. for example, the liberal giving of one's resources tothose in need is seen as an essential part of the Christian Hfe because Christ himselfgave up riches 10 become poor for the benefit of those in need. In 8:1-7, the gift ofmoney to the needy (the Jerusalem saints) is seen as an exhibition of divine grace inwhich it is an honor to participate. The initiative for such giving comes firstthrough giving oneself to the Lord. Indeed. Paul draws a connection betweenexcellence in faith, utterance. knowledge, etc. on the one hand and excellence in thematter 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 ameasure of the genuineness of love. The apostle establishes a direct Christologicalconnection between the sacrifice of one's own resources for others and the sacrificeof Christ's "riches" so that he might be poor for our benefit. As Christ's povertycontributed to men becoming rich, so our relinquishing of financial resources 10those 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 bythose receiving its benefits. The same charis that characterized the work of Christis to characterize the work of the believers.In vv. 10-1~. Paul clearly emphasizes the principle of redistribution of personalresources; that is, the establishment of an equality (Isetetes) based on need. Thosewith abundant material wealth must supply the needs of those without materia!possessions, and the goal is equality. The applicable principle of equality based onneed is further supported by Paul's reference to the gathering of manna (Ercdos.16:18); the amount "gathered" should not detract from the distributive equality. Thepoint here is simply that the Christian's wiUingness to sacrifice his earthly richesfor the good of others is a natural outgrowth of his association with Christ. whosacrificed so much more.In a more general sense. Phil 2:-4-11establishes the Christological foundation for thepriority of concern for others The general idea of v. " Is that one is to look out forthe interests of others rather than for one's own interests. The use of tai C'also") inv. " is important and involves two possible meanings first. one might view itadjunctively, the implication being that one's concern should be both for oneself and

20


22/25

for others. But a second possibility involves taking .tai in. an emphatic sense. Thiswould imply in a more radical way that self-concern is, in a sense. to be rejected infavor of concern shown to others. Such a rejection of self-cencern is clearly theChristological pattern set forth in vv. '-11.

'lie ' Iers

The coming of Christ marks, in a very profound sense, the presence of the kingdomof God. And this reality carried with it strong warnines concerning the dangers ofaccumulatin.g material wealth. In the teachings of Jesus. the concept of money andthe acquisitive spirit of man together seem to take on an other-worldly character.Though the NTdoes not see money per se as evil, in Matt 6:2~ God and money areclearly placed in contra-distinction to each other. People lack the ability to serve twomasters, for they wil1 inevitably polarise their attitudes toward each. Either Christ orwealth may be "master" (tyrios), but not both. The point here relates specifically tothe 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 thepossession of wealth Oaying up of earthly treasure) and actual service to that wealth.Service to money categorically rules out the possibility of service to God, and theaccumulation of money is indicative of service to it. This point is even more clear inthe case of the rich man, whose entrance into the kinedom was obstructed by thepossession of excessive amounts of property. wealth, and means. Sacrifice of.possessions was necessary for his entrance into the kinedom. Though the indicationhere is not that such sacrifice is sufficient for entrance into the kingdom, thesacrifice does appear to be necessary. In other words, the acquisitive spirit of manbars him from entrance into the kingdom.Other NT passages speak specifically of the invidious persona! consequences ofaccumulating wealth. From Luke 8:14one learns of the potential inherent withjn thepossession of many material goods for inhibiting or preventing the maturation nf theWord of God in one's life. Just as weeds shut off or choke plants from prop-ernourishment, so riches prevent nourishment of the Word of God in one's Iife.

21


23/25

Moreover, in I Timothy 6. Paul speaks of material versus spiritual gain. It seemed thatsome in tbe church had used their faith as a means of gain (probably material gain,cf. v.s), and the apostle opposes such conduct. He turns the factor of gain around andstates 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 isall we need. The invidious .consequences of desiring toaccumulate wealth are alsostressed in vv. 9-10 andinclude falling intotemptation, and senselessand hurtful desires leadingto ruin and destruction. Inv. to, the love of money isseen as specificallydeleterious to foUowing thefaith in addiltion to being. ina broader sense, the root ofall e vils .l I J The task of therich- is laid out here quiteclearly (vv. 17-19). Thosepossessing wealth are to puttheir faith in God ratherthan riches and to set theircon terns on doin g good __ .deeds rather than on riches. ,......~In this way their hope will not be placed in tenuous earthly possessions. By givingliberally, therefore, it is possible for one to take hold of the real life and thereby lay agood foundation for the future.The crucial issue, then, relates to whether one can have wealth without theaccumulation of it. The Biblical record appears to answer the question by itsinvectives against the "laying up" (accumulation) of earthly treasure. The 'rich' or'wealthy' are those who "lay up" earthly possessions. Material wealth seems, bydefinition, to be ethically in opposition to the teachings of the NT. The proper use ofmoney, 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'sresources, and i1 is just this accumulation that jesus attacks in the Sermon on theMount. In short. the radical nature of the kingdom of Goddoes not permit Christiansto accumulate wealth.

TIlelemaods af (lr.te

Much theology has emphasized salvation through faith almost to the exclusion ofseeing works as a necessary part of salvation. Indeed, the explantion based on jas.2:18 that moral actions prove faith is indeed true as far as it goes, but it does not tellthe whole story of the marvelous relation between works and salvation. The problemis that by viewing works only as the proof of salvation one leaves open the logicalpnssibiJity fOflSSuming that salvation is possible even if works do not foHow.H e rer, salvation that does .not manifest itself in works is no salvation at a11 The& n n Za.cchaeus, I"hint, points with significant insight to the relationshiphe een sal ali n and day-to-day Jiving.

22


24/25

Zacchaeus' "lost" condition included his social rejection, lack of self-respect.dishonest business practices and callousness toward the poor, as well as his lack offear for God. Butwhen he heard from Jesus the call to repentance ..open confession.and restitution, hatred and bitterness and the long cherished love ofmoneywere castout of his soul. These elements Zacchaeus replaced with the fear of God,the love ofjustice and the spirit of kindliness. Salvation. then, to Jesus meant what it did to anolder prophet. "to do justice, and to love mercy. and to walk humbly with thy God."(Micah 6:8). Zacchaeus' salvation appears in no mean way to be related to his newcommitment to financial integrity and his merciful regard for the poor. Though thishardly suggests salvation by works, it is perhaps one of the clearest examples of theinseparability of faith and works.Just as God's grace demands man's response in faith for salvation, divine gracebeyond the level of salvation demandsthat the life of faith be one of goodworks. Inregard to material goods,Godhas seen fit to supply the needs of men in abundance.Indeed. the phenomenon of prosperity. wherever it is found, is an indication ofGod'soverflowing love for mankind. Heprovides more than is required for the satisfactionof the needs of all men, and thus some may live in abundance. Certainly God'sprovision is sufficient for a11men, but in no way should this be construed as ajustification for wealth accumulation when the needs of others have not beensatisfied. God'sgracious gift of material provision is not to be stored (Matt. 6:19)butdispensed to those who have need. Godhas put money at man's disposal and economicgoodshave the potential for providing for those who are not directly able to 'Workforthem or who do not have them. The position of Scripture. therefore. demands thatany excess resources (profits) be dispensed to those in need. Material goodsdohave aplace in the kingdom. but the demands of the kingdom call for each person to viewhis resources from a spiritual perspective (Man. 19:16-30).One'sspiritual service alsoinvolves commitment of one's material possessions.Hence. the picture given by the NT regarding the Christian's use of financialresources is one of faithful stewardship. Godhas chosen men as his agents fordistributing the wealth of his gracious provision to other men. In this light onemight gain the proper perspective on the legitimacy of private ownership ofproperty. Property ownership is not ultimately an inherent right of man. It israther a privilege given to man by God.to be used for purposes according to thedivine will. Property ownership doesnot carry with it the right of arbitrary use ofthat property. for the goodof others is the controHing concern. The possession ofprivate property mayor may not best serve the purposes of the people of God. Theimportant thing is that the stewardship of one's God-givenresources be in line withGod'spurposes for meeting the needs of others.

c eluding Re.artsThe NTadmonitions regarding wealth constitute a stinging indictment of professingChristians who have given in to the lure of financial security through wealthaccumulation. The accumulation of material resources may make goodsense from thestandpoint of one's personal finances. but it cannot be reconciled with the relevantNTteaching. Such accumulation is destructive to one's individual spiritual life andadditionally hinders the equitable distribution of God'sgracious blessing to needyChristians and non-Christians around the world. The amassing of personal wealth for

23


25/25

oae's own selfish use indicates that one's service is to money and not to God (Matt.6:24).In terms germaine to present-day economic Hfe, one might say that the NTdistin guishes significantly between (1) the consumption of material goods and (2) theaccumulation of savings/investments that serve in themselves to increase one'spersonal financial worth. Consumption of material goods (without. of course. anidolatrous devotion to it) is quite proper and certainly to be enjoyed. But the NTsoundly denounces the suggestion that one may live in the Kingdom and accumulatewealth for one's selfish use at the same time. From the NTperspective. Christians mayserve only as conduits by which God's gracious material provision is equitablydistributed to the world. Selfish accumulation of wealth must be viewed asdisobedience to Christ's commands and distrust of God'spromise to supply the needs ofthose who have faith in him. The essential point of this article. then. is thataccumulating wealth is dangerous and risky. since many human beings are temptedto trust money and resources more than they trust God. Responding to the desires tobuild up a fortune may in fact blind one to Christian teachings. This is not to say thatall rich people are therefore sinners; but it does imply that their wealth mayconstitute a temptation 8 ;S ~ell as a responsibility.

24

acc journal of theology 2.2

Documents