Words from the Past Speaking to the Present

 The following is an exert from the book 

How to Serve God in a Marxist Land by Karl Barth. 

It is from a section entitled "Letter to a Pastor."

The letter addresses how one is to serve God in a land

where God has, for all intents and purposes, been removed 

either by the government or by the prevailing culture.

What is remarkable is that this advice from Barth is 

relevant to the Western Church of today.

But he, God, and his free grace, is really above all thoughts, concepts, and usual practices by which we Christians ourselves in East and West have been accustomed to live, seemingly serving both the glory of God and the salvation of man! What a multitude of things we have taken for granted: a church occupying a comfortable place in tlie social structure, her existence guaranteed, or at least respected, or at the very least tolerated by society in general and by the state in particular! Sunday as a recognized holiday and day of rest, and the chief church festivals which have somehow left their impact on the life of the people as a whole; infant baptism, confirmation, marriage, and burial, the Christian landmarks of the milieu and the existence of Mr. Everyman—means whereby the church has liked to reassure herself again and again of her obvious indispensability! The influence of the church in public education, instruction and upbringing of young people; with the maximimi claim that schools by right be Christian schools, or with the minimum claim that they be not openly opposed to "Christianity"! The prestige or at least the dignity of her official representatives among the leaders of other social and cultural organizations! The formal recognition of the church's freedom to participate in the discussion of general human concerns as a direct or indirect partner, welcome or unwelcome 1 Although these privileges of Christianity have never and nowhere gone unchallenged, certainly not in the last few centuries, it has seemed to us the most natural thing in the world that the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ should continue to run in some such channels as these, and that we should do the utmost for their preservation and defense, for the sake of God and the gospel! And we have done this zealously and repeatedly, both skillfully and unskillfully, successfully and unsuccessfully. Were we not motivated by the assumption that the Christian cause and confession can and must be formally understood and appreciated in the normal order of things by each and every citizen, at the very least in terms of the free practice of "religion"?  Is the world as such obligated to grant to Christianity the right to maintain that form of existence in its midst? What is happening to your situation in the East German republic, and possibly in other Marxist oriented lands, seems to cancel this whole bill of rights. The same thing will probably happen to us here in the West. With you it is no longer possible to overlook the fact that it is happening. In the socialist conception of the world and of man which powerfully asserts itself in your country, this brand of Christianity is gradually squeezed out. The time seems near or at least not far when the church in this form of existence will no longer have any place at all. The church will be foreign, despised and greatly suspect in the eyes of state and society. Membership in the church and confession of Christian faith will greatly jeopardize life's opportunities for individuals from school age onward. Your freedom of movement will be restricted to a minimum, and all that you are commissioned to do as a church will be done only in corners, in the shadow, with constant interference, harassment, and sabotage from without. The Folkskirche or National Church in the sense of the "Church of the people" will be only a dream.

It may be that the plight is not yet as bad as this in the East Zone, and that there are forces at work which are still counteracting this development. But the fact that this development is so obviously favored by your rulers is sufficient to beg questions in your minds as in ours: Can Christianity truly fulfill its task only in that form of existence which until now has been taken for granted? Only in the light of that public assistance, recognition, or at least tolerance? Only with the help of the whole apparatus of a national church and on the premise of freedom of action? Only as one strong pillar among others in the social structure? Only when it possesses a legal claim on each and every citizen? Just exactly where does one read of the first churches of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem, Rome, Corinth, or Asia Minor  as being permitted to enjoy this mode of existence? And where are they promised it for some later time? Where do we learn that its origin was in itself a good thing, or that the church stands and falls with it, or that the church is committed to it, come hell or high water? I am not saying anything new to you in reference to this question. It was indeed one of your most renowned and ablest men. General Superintendent Giinther Jacob in Cottbus, who not long ago announced the "end of the Constantinian era." Because I have a certain wariness about all theoretical formulations of a philosophy of history, I hesitate to make this expression my own. But it is certain that something resembling this approaching end begins to show itself dimly everywhere, but very sharply in your part of the world. 

It is certain that we all have reason to ask ourselves each of these questions, and in every case quickly and clearly to give the answer: No, the church's existence does not always have to  possess the same form in the future that it has possessed in the past, as though this were the only possible pattern. No, the continuance and victory of the cause of God, which the Christian Church is to serve with her witness, is not unconditionally linked with the forms of existence which it has had until now. Yes, the hour may strike and has perhaps already struck when God, to our discomfiture, but to his glory and for the salvation of mankind, will put an end to this mode of existence because it lacks integrity and has lost its usefulness. Yes, it could be our duty to free ourselves inwardly from our dependency on that mode of existence even while it still lasts. Indeed, on the assumption that it may one day entirely disappear, we definitely should look about us for new ventures in new directions. 

Yes, as the Church of God we may depend on it that if only we are attentive, God will show us such new ways as we can hardly anticipate now. And as the people who are bound to God we may even now claim unconquerable security for ourselves through him. For his name is above all names, even above the name that we in human, all too human, fashion have hitherto borne in his service and in a kind of secular forgetfulness, confused with his own. Might it not be, dear brothers and sisters in the imperiled East Zone, that you there and we here are now to do justice to the old Soli Deo Gloria in an entirely new spirit of humility, openness, and readiness? Might it not be your special calling to be a living example for the rest of us of how a church lives that seeks for and perhaps has already entered upon a new way, of a church for, not of, the people—the church in "God's beloved (deeply beloved!) East Zone"?

How to Serve God in a Marxist Land by Karl Barth. 1959

Hospice Care for Churches?

Lately it seems that there is a rise in the discussion of church hospice care.  This is an unfortunate result of the growing number of churches in the US that are dying.  Now then, church hospice care occurs when a minister recognizes that the church they serve is dying and that there is no hope for recovery.  The minister at this point has one of two options: 1) leave as quickly as possible (in the hopes of finding greener pastures), or 2) stay with the church and provide hospice care to help the church die “with dignity.”  

Now it should be noted that a dying church is not a dead church.  It is in fact possible for a dying church to comeback (see the book Comeback Churches by Ed Stetzer) and to be a healthy church.  However this takes a great commitment from both the church leadership and the church membership.  It should also be noted that church hospice care could be undertaken by the pastor with or without the church memberships’ knowledge.  It will usually amount to a conscience decision by the pastor to not attempt to grow the church.  The decision is made to simply maintain everything as well as can be maintained until inevitability the church is not able to even maintain the most rudimentary elements of church life.  In other words, they can no longer pay the bills.  A pastor will usually come to this decision either because he simply doesn’t care if the church grows or because he has realized that there is little to no chance of a turn around.  If the decision to begin hospice care is because a comeback seems unlikely, then the pastor is also making the decision to continue to care for the congregation much as hospice cares for a patient.  He simply will be looking to make the dying and eventual death a peaceful and comfortable experience.

Now a lot can be said as to why a church is not healthy and dying.  A lot can also be said about turning a church around (if possible).  However, that is not the purpose here.  The purpose here is to ask the question:  Is it biblical for a pastor to engage in church hospice care? 

To say that church hospice care is biblical is to say that despite a church’s unhealthy status, there is in fact ministry still occurring.  There are still people there who care for and love one another.  There are people there who for example, will gather around a new widow to help her through the grief.  

The purpose for asking the question here though hinges on what the calling of a pastor entails.  Is the calling of a pastor primarily a calling to “equip the saints for the work of ministry (Eph. 4:12)?”  If that is the case then one could argue that a pastor is equipping when he assist in ministry work such as in the example of the widow above.  However, shouldn’t it be asked, what is the work of the ministry that the pastor is to equip the saints for?  More specifically, what is the primary work of the ministry?  It would seem that the primary work of the ministry is to make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20).  Therefore, the primary work of the pastor would be to equip the saints to make more disciples who make more disciples.  One may object here and say that the reference in Ephesians 4 states that the equipping of the saints is for the “building up of the body in Christ” and that this is in reference to bringing the saints together in unity of doctrine and love.  But what is the point of saints building unified in doctrine and in love for one another?  Indeed, as we see elsewhere such as in Acts 6, it was a legitimate ministry to see that the people are being fed.  However, this was not the primary ministry.  The ministry of seeing that people were fed was to assist in the larger ministry goal of feeding the people with prayer and the Word which is what equips the saints for ministry.  And that ministry has as its goal the fulfillment of the Great Commission – go and make disciples (note the correlation of what occurs in Acts 6:7 with the decision of the Apostles in vs. 1-6).

So then, how does the primary role of the pastor fit into the question of whether church hospice care is biblical?  If the primary role of the pastor is to equip disciples to make other disciples then can we say that it is biblical for the pastor to be in a church where this is not and where it will not be happening?  In other words is it biblical for a pastor to stay in a place where he cannot equip the saints to make other disciples?  Is it biblical for a church to even continue in its existence if that church has determined either explicitly or implicitly that it will not be a place that is determined to make disciples?  

I don’t pretend to have the answer to these questions.  In fact, I have many more questions and concerns on this matter which is why I am writing this.  I am hoping that this will further the discussion.  To be sure, this is not merely a discussion on the issue of church hospice care but it is a discussion on the nature and role of the pastor and the church.  This is a discussion that anyone in ministry should always be asking.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Just who is responsible?

I heard a political candidate the other night state that if elected it would be his responsibility to provide shelter, food, and clothing. The only problem with this statement is that such responsibilities are not outlined in the Constitution (just to make sure I actually read the thing). There is no mention in the Constitution of the government providing shelter, food, or clothing.

So then just who is responsible? Well, some may say that it is the individual's responsibility to work and provide for themselves. We may say that it is the responsibility of the parents to provide such things for their children. We would be correct in these assertions. Never the less, we must also recognize that there are many who even with the best intentions and efforts cannot adequately provide even these basic necessities of life.

So then, who is responsible to assist those with shelter, food, and clothing? Again, these items are not mentioned in the Constitution. However, these are mentioned in such places as Deuteronomy 15, Isaiah 58, Matthew 25, and James 2. It is right to say that it is not the government's job to care for our neighbors. It is also right to say that it is the job of the Church. How can we claim to be the Church of Christ, the one who came to preach good news to the poor, when we spend untold millions on our own comforts? At what point does the Church recognize that millions spent on gymnasiums, grand fountains, coffee shops, and "Christian" teddy bears is an abomination as nearly 30,000 children die today because of a lack of basic food, shelter, and medical care? Of course, we justify the spending of these millions because we say that such things help us to attract and win loss souls? I just have one question then: If spending money on such things is helping us to win loss souls, then why is the church in North America on the decline?