I have to give credit to my pastor, Ben Mandrell of Englewood Baptist Church in Jackson, Tennessee, for this title and idea. He plans to preach the sermon next week, but he couldn’t help but give a preview in the form of a few examples. Here are some approximations of what he said:
Lord, that family down the street seems really lonely. Send someone to give them company and fellowship.
Father, that boy seems not to have a father. Put someone in his life to fill that need.
Lord, that single mother in my Sunday school class appears to be in real financial distress. A few hundred dollars would make a real difference for her. Father, please provide for her need.
Probably most of you reading these examples are already smiling. You see the problem, don’t you? The very fact that we have observed a real need in another person or group of persons likely means that WE ARE THE ONES GOD INTENDS TO MEET THE NEED.
Can you be the one who invites the lonely family over to your house? Can you offer to spend time with the boy who has no father? Can you be the one who has the resources on hand to immediately and dramatically help the single mother in financial need? Gut check time. Can you do it even if you won’t realize a tax deduction in the process?
This is a spiritual challenge that we are generally not eager to accept. If we decide to live our lives in such a way that we are very sensitive to God’s promptings, we may end up giving more than we really want to give. We may end up with lots of little incursions on our time or our money. Maybe some big ones.
But do we seriously believe God can be pleased with us if we do not commit to exactly this way of life?
February 13th, 2011 | 10:25 pm | #1
||||
Very well said.
February 14th, 2011 | 9:43 am | #2
We need to purpose in our hearts, and then give with a cheerful heart, for the most part.
There are times when we may have to give when it hurts. In the end we will surely be blessed, but we should not be focused on us being blessed, should we.
It truly is more blessed to give. I have found that out. Yet, the world, my flesh and the devils in this world are a constant hinderance to the Church being generous and giving.
Thanks for the good thoughts.
February 14th, 2011 | 11:33 am | #3
A big problem is that many Christians assume that the guys they pay to be ministers are the ones who are responsible for minstering to those in need. We live with a ministry subcontracting system where as a “lay person” I am doing my part for others by putting a couple of bucks in the plate to pay someone else to do the hard work.
February 14th, 2011 | 11:46 am | #4
To answer Dr. Baker’s last question – yes, God may still be pleased with us, because he is pleased with the finished work of Christ.
Gospel triumphs law every time.
February 14th, 2011 | 2:30 pm | #5
MRS, I understand your theological point, but I think it encourages spiritual laxness. Too many Christians make an excuse of resting in Christ’s work. To put it crassly, I’ve heard people suggest that they’ve prayed the prayer and they’re done. No more worries. Do you really think God doesn’t care about that?
February 14th, 2011 | 3:14 pm | #6
I Will Miss You Irene Rosenberg.
With regards to a situation where you were fairly certain, as you were, Dr. Baker, that Irene Rosenberg knew the Gospel and had rejected it, and because of that, you then chose not to personally share the Gospel with her, then the criticisms inherent in “Here am I. Send Someone Else” don’t really apply, do they?
February 14th, 2011 | 3:40 pm | #7
TUAD,
Your accusation here is one of the most disgraceful things I’ve ever read in my life. It leads me to believe that, far from being interested in truth, you’re interested in a being a total d**k.
February 14th, 2011 | 4:14 pm | #8
Stephen,
I am most sincerely serious about the question.
If you (a generalized “you”) think that someone already knows the Gospel and has rejected it, and yet you don’t want to personally share the Gospel again with them (1st time for you personally sharing with them), but you still personally hope and pray that they eventually do possess a salvific faith and relationship with Christ, then aren’t you really saying:
“Here am I. Send someone else.”
February 14th, 2011 | 4:18 pm | #9
How about you just leave the guy’s deceased friend out of it? Bringing that sort of thing up here (in a completely different discussion) is so low that it almost makes me vomit.
February 14th, 2011 | 4:26 pm | #10
Whatever, dude.
February 14th, 2011 | 4:58 pm | #11
TUAD,
Maybe none of this really matters since according to you salvation was entirely determined by God in eternity past. Who’s inconsistent here? If someone has been elected to salvation, then no one can change that. The same is true if they were elected damnation.
February 14th, 2011 | 5:27 pm | #12
OrthodoxDJ Dustin,
That’s not what’s being discussed. What’s being discussed is obeying The Great Commission and its relationship to “Here am I. Send Someone Else.”
February 14th, 2011 | 5:34 pm | #13
I don’t see what’s wrong with TUAD’s question. If asked respectfully he is simply asking for consistency from the author of this article and wondering how his situation is different from the charge he gives to us.
Even if it isn’t different, and he’s guilty of the same negligence we often are, it doesn’t mean that his message is invalidated. And maybe that’s where TUAD’s conclusions fall short. Just because Hunter may be guilty of the same thing doesn’t mean his, “criticisms inherent in ‘Here am I. Send Someone Else’ don’t really apply.” They still apply, they just also apply to the one doing the teaching in this case.
That aside, his question could be very edifying and helpful if asked with respect and Hunter was gracious enough to oblige.
February 14th, 2011 | 5:44 pm | #14
“Even if it isn’t different, and he’s guilty of the same negligence we often are, it doesn’t mean that his message is invalidated.”
I’m not even saying that.
I just want to know if whether declining to share the Gospel to someone you think/judge knows the Gospel and has rejected it is a special case which merits an exemption to the “Here am I. Send someone else.”
February 14th, 2011 | 8:02 pm | #15
Mr. TUAD,
YOU were discussing consistency and did so by bringing up a post that’s extrinsic to the subject. So, I ask you, how is it conistent to believe that people need to share the Gospel in order for others to be saved while also believing that salvation is by election alone?
February 14th, 2011 | 9:01 pm | #16
James 2, 14-26, spells out the basics, along with Matthew, 25, 31-46.
February 14th, 2011 | 11:44 pm | #17
It’s okay. I don’t mind TUAD’s point, though it is offered in as inflammatory a manner as he can muster. I probably should have challenged Irene Rosenberg about her faith in the Jewish God sans Jesus. I can say this much, though. When I was in the law school where she taught, I was a witness for the Lord. Everyone in that place knew what I believed. Nothing was hidden. I wasn’t crouching under a desk hoping for someone else to be known as a believer.
February 15th, 2011 | 1:35 am | #18
TUAD,
While I disagree with your Calvinist (at least that’s the gist I’m getting) beliefs and agree with the implications that Orthodoxdj is implying, I won’t start up a Calvinist debate here because (a) it is not apropos and (b) sadly, and I wish it weren’t the case, no one ever wins in those debates, especially in online venues.
However, I will take umbrage with your initial “claim of inconsistency.” I’m not sure what you’re trying to do, whether it’s to slight Irene or slight Hunter, but either way it’s needless and offensive, as well as irrelevant to either post. At best, your claim of inconsistency is a tu quoque, at worst an attempt to defame someone trying to make an honest post. Either way, it’s not helpful to the fruitful spiritual discourse that we’re all striving for on this blog. Even if one says that Irene Rosenberg was not granted salvation for rejecting the Gospel, that point is mute to the points Hunter is making. He wasn’t arguing that she should have gotten into heaven or that she was the best example of a Christian ever….he even said she wasn’t a Christian. However, that doesn’t mean he can’t pay tribute to an important figure in his life.
Moreover, Hunter’s claims to minister to others better are universally true, even if he, by your standard, didn’t live up to it. I’m pretty sure you agree with that. In that case, all you’re showing is that you really don’t disagree with Hunter’s message, but that you’d like to spend your time trying to bring down someone out of some sanctimonious agenda. That, unfortunately, is not a very Christian way to engage in discourse, and something that really shouldn’t be tolerated in a forum such as this one.
February 15th, 2011 | 6:51 am | #19
Me: “I just want to know if whether declining to share the Gospel to someone you think/judge knows the Gospel and has rejected it is a special case which merits an exemption to the “Here am I. Send someone else.”
Hunter Baker: “I probably should have challenged Irene Rosenberg about her faith in the Jewish God sans Jesus.”
Thank you. That’s what I was curious about.
———–
(1) Post: “The very fact that we have observed a real need in another person or group of persons likely means that WE ARE THE ONES GOD INTENDS TO MEET THE NEED.”
(2) Comment: “When I was in the law school where she taught, I was a witness for the Lord. Everyone in that place knew what I believed. Nothing was hidden. I wasn’t crouching under a desk hoping for someone else to be known as a believer.”
That’s good. But let’s compare and contrast (1) with (2). As far as I can ascertain, what you’re saying in the post is that if you see a need, God is probably wanting you to meet that need. (Observe the all-caps emphasis). However your comment says that since everybody knew that you were a believer in law school, then if they had a need to know about your beliefs, then they knew who to turn to. In other words, they had to seek you out. If they ever even decided to seek you out.
This is *markedly* different than what you’re saying in the post. One is active and one is passive. One says “I see a need, let me go meet it.” The other says “I have the skill set, if someone has a need, they know who to turn to.”
Big difference.
February 15th, 2011 | 7:37 am | #20
TUAD, I just realized that I know you. I know you by another name, but it’s interesting to see you here.
February 15th, 2011 | 9:20 am | #21
One more question, TUAD. Given this thread, I should ask and be sure not to neglect the issue. Are you a Christian? Are you, the author of the pseudonymously offered comments made by TUAD, a Christian? This is important to know so that the opportunity not be missed in case you are not. This is not a rhetorical question.
February 15th, 2011 | 9:33 am | #22
Hunter,
The question to TUAD above in #21 seems on the face of it, to be rather derogatory. From all of TUAD’s posts, even from reading Mr. Volk’s reference to TUAD’s Calvinistic beliefs, one should be able to discern TUAD’s Christian position. I’m not sure why you ask this question, as if each of us must answer in the affirmative if we are to post here?
February 15th, 2011 | 10:00 am | #23
Steve, there’s a method to my madness in this case.
February 15th, 2011 | 10:10 am | #24
Hunter,
Okay, but why not use the method on everyone who posts here with a pseudonym? I understand you think you know who TUAD ‘really’ is, but why is that exclusive to TUAD, and not to Orhtodoxdj, or MRS, or any of the others who post such? I take it your blog post of today, Tuesday, Feb.15, “A Useful Idea for Commenters…’ was an attempt to address a perceived need for more grace in our posts. A point well taken for all of us, but trying to expose ‘TUAD’, and not all others, seems a bit one-sided, don’t you think?
February 15th, 2011 | 10:10 am | #25
Dear Hunter,
To your non-rhetorical question I am a Christian.
And given the eternity that awaits us both, even though we haven’t met each other, or have even remotely made each other’s acquaintance, you do not know me. But we will in Heaven.
And who knows, maybe we will meet one day here on Earth. But as of now, we definitely don’t know each other outside of blogging.
——–
And a very warm thanks to Steve Drake.
February 15th, 2011 | 10:21 am | #26
Hunter Baker: “Steve, there’s a method to my madness in this case.”
Given this admission, I still have hopes for what you’ve written recently: “We expect that people will be honest about who they are and their motives.”
And since you wrote this: “Individuals will expose themselves, often with a radical lack of grace” I hope that when you expose the method to your madness that you don’t do it with a “radical lack of grace” as you put it.
February 15th, 2011 | 10:28 am | #27
It seemed like a good question to ask. Thanks for the answer.
February 15th, 2011 | 10:49 am | #28
Dr. Baker has hit upon the Law/Gospel distinction, and while I agree that there is much work to be done for God’s Kingdom, it has to be Gospel-centered, and not centered upon any effort on our part to fulfill the law or “do our part” or work in such a way as to “make God happy.”
February 15th, 2011 | 11:17 am | #29
Of course, the actions we take in our lives as Christians (all of our attempts to serve God) flow from his work of the Gospel.
February 15th, 2011 | 12:16 pm | #30
Mr. Baker thanks for elaborating on the question TUAD brought up. Obviously, there is a history here that I’m unaware of or something else going on. Would it be wrong for someone to fill me in?
I just discovered this blog and I’m really confused by the other conversation that happened in these comments… ?
February 15th, 2011 | 1:11 pm | #31
Jared O, #30:
There’s no history here (between Hunter Baker and myself) that I’m aware of.
February 15th, 2011 | 1:30 pm | #32
Jared, comments here at Evangel have sometimes been overly contentious. I apologize for any negative impression it may have given you.
February 15th, 2011 | 2:18 pm | #33
We, as Christians, cannot avoid the charge of hypocrisy in many of the things we do. It’s the nature of sin, still resident in our bodies, until the perishable will put on the imperishable, and the mortal will put on the immortal (1 Cor. 15:54).
The “Here I am, Send Someone Else’ is indeed a poignant example of the hypocrisy that beseeches us all, the author of the post, I’m sure he would agree, not excluded.
When hypocrisy raises it’s ugly head, we, as Christians, should be duly ashamed and chastised for our sin, and repent, from whatever corner it may arise. Some here, have pointed out that hypocrisy. If it was through a lack of grace that this was communicated, the message is no less diminished. Was Luther’s posting of his 95 theses on the Wittenburg door considered a lack of grace? By some, I’m sure it was, but we as Evangelicals need a reminder from time to time, that our sanctimonious ‘lives’ are weighed in the balance and found wanting.
February 15th, 2011 | 6:30 pm | #34
Jared O. said, #13 above,
‘Even if it isn’t different, and he’s guilty of the same negligence we often are, it doesn’t mean that his message is invalidated.’
To which TUAD responded, #14 above,
‘I’m not even saying that.
I just want to know if whether declining to share the Gospel to someone you think/judge knows the Gospel and has rejected it is a special case which merits an exemption to the “Here am I. Send someone else.”’
TUAD brings up a good question worthy of further discussion. Has it been answered yet?
Is this the hypocrisy that I speak about in #32 above? Not at all. TUAD rightly points out a dilemma that we all face, and is seeking clarification. Mr. Baker, what say you?
February 15th, 2011 | 9:43 pm | #35
I want to thank Hunter Baker, for the humanity of his post. I cannot help but think: instead of arguing the theological nuances, of who’s “saved”, and who isn’t (a rather unseemly, and arrogant exercise, since no one can see in the heart of another) why not do what Jesus taught: care for those in need of caring.
February 21st, 2011 | 2:52 pm | #36
[...] Last week’s post from Hunter Baker reminded me of two other, similar, writings. [...]
February 22nd, 2011 | 2:14 am | #37
Hunter,
We social workers just want you fiscal conservatives to know that we are the “someone else” that gets sent when others don’t go. We are the innkeepers in the Good Samaritan parable: http://relateinfaith.com/archives/245
You are right “we may end up giving more than we really want to give.” For some of us this is money. For others it is time, or the safety of our own social circles and neighborhoods, or anything that “exalts itself against the knowledge of God.” I like the way Derek Webb puts it in his song “The Rich Young Ruler” when he has God saying, “I want the things you just can’t give me.”
Tozer’s second chapter in “The Pursuit of God” is entitled “The Blessedness of Possessing Nothing” and has challenged me in so many ways. I reluctantly reread that chapter often knowing that each time it may require of me something new. Our Lord asks us to do things that seems scary to us. Just look what he asked of Abraham re Isaac. As Mr. Beaver says in Narnia, “…he isn’t safe. but he’s good.”
February 23rd, 2011 | 12:19 pm | #38
Todd, I agree with your overall sentiment, but don’t see how fiscal conservatism plays into it. A fiscal conservative could display great holiness and submission to God’s will in his giving. It need not be through the device of taxation.
February 23rd, 2011 | 12:38 pm | #39
My comment about fiscal conservatives, and the post I cited, are in reference to the attack on state employees that is occurring around the country in the name of balancing budgets through spending cuts alone. Yes fiscal conservatives can and do give through personal giving, but what I am arguing is that it is not enough when the surrogate caregivers (public child welfare workers) are assigned unmanageable caseloads.
During a recession, calls to suicide crisis lines go through the roof, but the budgets for mental health services are some of the first ones on the chopping block. The question I think we should ask is how does the Bible inform principles of government in regards to providing for those that are truly powerless.
No doubt, if we as Christians were obedient in giving of our time and money, the issue of government funding would be less of an issue. But as is, we are not doing our part. I think that if we are serious about faith in public life, we have to examine what it means to be “pro-life.” It means not only pushing for laws outlawing abortion, but also being willing to adopt children, and adequately funding the agencies that employee civil servants who look after the widows and orphans.
February 23rd, 2011 | 2:37 pm | #40
“The question I think we should ask is how does the Bible inform principles of government in regards to providing for those that are truly powerless.”
Good question. That is definitely the one we need to try to answer. The answer is probably not just find someone with power and compel them to help. But to say that much is still not to answer. Your question deserves a lot of contemplation.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact