Monday, April 28, 2008

The Uneasy Conscience of a (Post) Modern Fundamentalist


For the past eighteen years, I’ve felt several overriding tensions as I live out the gospel in the ‘hood. In some ways it is an “uneasy conscience” as Dr. Carl F.H. Henry described a half a century ago. For me, this uneasiness surfaces from the tension between the false antithesis of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, specifically as it relates to the faith community’s responsibility to help the poor. The more that I ponder my fundamentalist-Baptist upbringing, the more I realize how this heritage played a part in creating the tension.

Due to my father’s ministry job as a worship pastor, I grew-up attending several different Fundamentalist-Baptist churches of the GARBC for the first twenty-two years of my life. During those two decades, I don’t ever recall hearing a message from any of the pastors or a Bible study from any of the Sunday School teachers that called attention to the plight of the poor and the Christian’s God-given responsibility to help them. Even though I frequented these churches every time the building was open, including every Sunday morning, every Sunday evening, and every Wednesday night, I never heard anyone refer to any of the 2000 or so Bible verses throughout both testaments that implore God’s people to help the poor. So when I began serving the poor at a little store-front church in the inner-city as a college student, I suddenly became acutely aware of how God’s concern for the poor permeated the entire narrative of Scripture. With some mentoring from Servants Center's director Don Tack, I also realized the futileness of pious activities such as street evangelism among the homeless population compared to building relationships and doing holistic ministry among them. Unfortunately, when I switched ministries to become a manager of a homeless shelter (under the direction of Don Tack) that emphasized holistic ministry, my home church in Indiana responded by dropping my missionary support. Later, word got back to me that they believed I had embraced the “social-gospel,” which is sort of like the Scarlet letter of Fundamentalism. My name and ministry suddenly became synonymous with words such as neo-evangelical, compromise, liberal, and social-gospel.

There is pain in rejection, especially from such a grave misunderstanding by my ecclesiastical heritage. I was just as committed to the gospel as I’d ever been. In fact, out of the 21 men that benefited from the homeless shelter during my two years as its supervisor, eleven graduated into self-sufficiency with full-time employment and secure housing. Several men trusted Christ for their salvation and to this day, continue to serve Christ in their church. In comparison, when I was doing street evangelism, several made dramatic professions to Christ, but every single one of them fell away because their “conversion” wasn’t the real thing.

What’s more, I was just as committed to sound doctrine as I’d ever been. I embraced historical fundamentals such as an infallible, inerrant Scripture, Christ’s deity, Christ’s substitutionary atonement for our sins, Christ’s bodily resurrection, and Christ’s imminent return. Yet to the leadership from my former home church, my actions proved otherwise. How twisted the logic of their thinking! That somehow because I added social and economic activities such as job assistance, mentoring, and budget counseling to evangelism among the homeless poor meant that I no longer held to a high view of the Bible and Christ. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t those who hold to an inerrant and infallible view of Scripture be passionately and actively living out what the Scripture actually says? Since they believe the Bible to be true, shouldn’t the fundamental and conservative evangelical churches be most concerned about living out the 2000 or so verses about the poor and oppressed that demand a response from God’s people? Regrettably, this has not been the case. If our treasure is where our heart is, many of the yearly budgets from these churches reflect more of a concern for bricks and mortar, professional pastoral staffing, and quirky Christmas and Easter programs than responding to the needs of the poor.

From that moment fifteen years ago, I realized that an essential part of urban ministry must also include educating the church about ministry among the poor. Therefore, for the past fifteen years of our ministry to at-risk youth and their families in the ‘hood, we have served the church by offering workshops and seminars such as: “how to redemptively assist the poor without creating dependency.” This has been my little way of influencing fundamental and conservative evangelical churches, countering the lack of theological reflection that I’ve observed when addressing current social and economic issues that affect the poor. It has also done wonders when confronting the tension that I feel as a "post-modern" who believes and lives out the fundamentals.

6 comments:

jimkastkeat said...

Joel, great post and great story (though heart wrenching). Thanks for all the things you've taught me and continue to teaching to so many others.

I especially liked the following:

"Shouldn’t those who hold to an inerrant and infallible view of Scripture be passionately and actively living out what the Scripture actually says? Since they believe the Bible to be true, shouldn’t the fundamental and conservative evangelical churches be most concerned about living out the 2000 or so verses about the poor and oppressed that demand a response from God’s people?"

Great questions. Now if only we could get a straight answer...

Joel A. Shaffer said...

Jim, soon I'll be addressing ten different reasons/excuses that fundamental and conservative evangelical churches make for not making the poor a priority. Since I'm still considered an insider (one of them), I'm pretty sure that it will be a fair critique and not a straw man argument that certain people make as outsiders.

By the way, good series on how to read a book.....That might be one of the reasons you liked me in class, because not only did we do all of the practical stuff, but also I assigned all of you a boatload of readings.....

Also, last year's urban min. class hated me for it. They definitely were not readers and I only assigned 3/4ths of what I assigned your class....

Poop is Emergent Too said...

Joel,
Man that is some amazing stuff. I felt it on every level...from GARB rejection to the hood to fighting to get people to realize that the American dream is not the Gospel.

That is just a great post. The GARBC is better for having you!

Anonymous said...

It really is a gift from God man that you have the patience and love to continue to reach out to the fundamentalist church. You really have a peace making gift. Because you not only reach out to the people on the far right of the Christian spectrum, but also liberal whackos like me.

It is an inspiration and challenge to me that you continue to (lovingly) provoke and challenge the evangelical church while I finding myself continually throwing my hands up in disgust and becoming less engaged.

Joel A. Shaffer said...

D(poop is emergent)-thanks again for your encouragement. I'm sure that we'd have a good laugh comparing GARBC stories from the past. I'm not sure how long I'll be in the GARBC ranks with the church plant that J.T. is preparing to do (I'll be one of his elders). When Calvary C. officially gets behind this, I think they will encourage J.T and us to partner with the BGC. Keep on writing funny, sarcastic stuff.

Derek, you're not as liberal as you might think. Many of my African-American brothers in Jesus are even a little more left than you....

Poop is Emergent Too said...

Well I only said that the Garb was better for having you...not that you would not be better without them!

D
(recovering GARB-ER)