(Continued from part 1.)
Ministry myopia?
I don’t believe any Radical oversights are intentional. Instead, I wonder if any ministry myopia has accidentally come into play. That mindset happens quite often; I frequently fight it myself.
Here is what I mean. What if I wrote my own book about how (currently this is a favorite topic for me) many Christians have not applied a Biblical worldview to their normal day-to-day jobs? My theme: too many believers have this notion that some jobs are “sacred,” such as church work, and other jobs are “secular,” not worth as much commitment, and not as spiritual.
So in this hypothetical book, I strive very hard to be Biblical. While questioning the state of Christians’ thinking about work, I disclaim many times about how I don’t want to be legalistic. Going through passages such as Proverbs, Colossians 3, and 1 Thessalonians 4:11, I’m very careful to explain that God knows we can’t always do our absolute best at our jobs, doing everything as if for God and not for men. I also make it clear: some Christians truly are called to do overtly “spiritual” jobs, like Going into The Ministry, and all believers should support them.
But what if in this book, almost all the verses and anecdotes I cited were about Christians in secular jobs? What if, right up until the last, I only emphasized scenarios about people who were blessed by forsaking sacred/secular mindsets, and now living for God in their normal jobs?
Very often I felt that was what Platt has done, but only in reverse. Again I found nothing un-Biblical in his book. But he left unsaid too much that was Biblical.
Sure, it’s very hard to include every nuance, every disclaimer, every related truth, in any book or sermon about a particular subject. Platt did well including many related truths with his points to live radically for Jesus in all areas. I don’t question his commitment, his heart, or his effort. However, I do wonder whether any encouragements to be radical and dismiss American-dream false teachings should also include truths from four essential and related Biblical doctrines.
(Tomorrow: Platt seems to overlook the truth that “radical” Christianity takes different forms.)
[...] (Tomorrow: might some who encourage “radical” Christianity forget “ministry myopia”?) [...]
“What if I wrote my own book about how (currently this is a favorite topic for me) many Christians have not applied a Biblical worldview to their normal day-to-day jobs?”
I agree with your overall point, but I think this basis is skewing your view of the book in general. The subtitle was “Taking back your faith from the American Dream”, implying the focal audience was Christians enraptured by materialism. I believe that focusing on a so-called “secular or sacred” type of ministry just misses the point of everything he was saying.
Furthermore, I think sometimes a person’s point can get watered down if the author spends as much time nailing all the qualifiers as he does making his point. There are always qualifiers.
While I can understand the book’s limited audience, I also know that some Christians who are enraptured with materialism may need to experience heart-and-head transformations that don’t necessarily involve the give-it-all-to-the-poor-or-enter-Ministry challenges. A far greater challenge, for some people, would be to “redeem” those existing resources for His glory. Of course, for some that would only be an excuse to keep the Stuff, but either way the Stuff is not itself the cause of the sin, but has merely been misused, likely idolized.
Also, while an author could get bogged down in qualifiers, is it not a pastor’s responsibility to ensure that Biblical balance in the Gospel, and not My Particular Vocation Is Very Likely Yours, is the focus? To do otherwise leads too easily to ministry myopia, and (ever so subtly) away from the Gospel. This is not to disparage Platt’s motivations or his own personal ministry, or to excuse the many evangelicals who do need to kill their materialism idols. However, it would seem better a) not to leave it to others to correct what you leave out and thus (perhaps unkindly) make them into the “bad cops” or vulnerable to criticisms that they are materialism defenders, b) even for those Americans who do worship their things, is there not a better way to help them forsake their idols, rather than (likely incidental) guilt-tripping over French fries?
Kevin DeYoung in his review points out that Platt, in his understandable haste, neglects even to mention that non-”radical” jobs, such as Christians being active in political pressure of African nations to allocate resources and develop motivation and industry, are often far better ways of helping the poor instead of simply throwing money or Ministry at them. And this would apply directly to that limited audience of Stuff-idolizing Americans, who may find that their radical sacrifice in response to the Gospel involves going to college for international diplomacy degrees to share the Gospel while also implementing its infrastructure-transformation fruits, instead of seminary for Ministry.
Anthony Bradley, writing about Radical for World magazine, shares something else I had not directly considered while writing my own review: Radical almost exclusively cites anecdotes of white Christian people helping black people. Why is that? Bradley asks. And he does not chalk this up to some underlying racism, but just a tendency of some white Christians to consider the ultimate Ministry achievement to be white people helping black people, whether in Africa or the Inner City. But white people in the suburbs, trailer parks and moralistic churches of America need the Gospel and “radical” change as much as anyone!
I have to quote Bradley’s third and fourth questions/comments/rebuttals to Radical, because he very said this better than I could. He also incidentally repeats DeYoung’s reminders that helping the poor involves long-term solutions, forged with ministry as well as politics and other “plodding” (DeYoung’s term) jobs, not just get-on-fire-for-Jesus.