Compromise Just Doesn’t Cut It
I’m afraid that some so-called Christians just don’t get it.
What do I mean? Well, the use of the name “Christ” or “church” or anything else suggesting that we belong to Jesus Christ can certainly be polarizing. After all, when Jesus makes such “wild” claims as He did in John 14:6 when He said “I am the way, the truth and the life,” that doesn’t leave much room for anyone else to be our Savior now, does it?
The light of so many so-called Christians no longer burns brightly including those who believe that Christian organizations should put their lights under a bushel in exchange for receiving public funding.
Well, it seems that a certain Christian charity is considering dropping the word “church” from its name because some believe that this particular word is limiting the amount of public funding that they receive. According to The Christian Post, the Scottish-based Churches Action for the Homeless (CATH) is concerned that its perceived religious identity is making it difficult for the organization to access grants. Trustees for CATH are asking supporters to come up with a new name for the organization, one that would be fully inclusive.
Say that again?
Apparently, religious organizations across the United Kingdom rely upon government funding in part to support their work. Some have accused the British government in showing bias toward Muslim organizations when it comes to the distribution of funds. Others have said that Christian groups should provide public services as long as they promise not to share the gospel.
Brethren, if we’re doing the work of the Lord without the Lord working in and through our lives, all of our work is in vain no matter how noble the effort. Certainly, helping people out is important, but when your ministry is based on the rock solid foundation of Jesus Christ, then doing anything less than your “utmost for His highest” simply does not cut it.
Jesus said in Matthew 5:14-15, “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.”
Organizations founded on the work of Christ that no longer preach the gospel should probably change their names as well as their mission statements. Why make any pretense that you stand for the truth, when you rely on man, not God to sustain your efforts?
If I sound harsh, I apologize. I simply see no reason why any work started on the foundation of Christ should continue that way instead of compromising the truth and weakening the gospel message. Certainly, it would be better for CATH and other organizations to take a bold stand, but that would only be possible if supporters were proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ above all else.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Even this misses the point. Such projects as CATH grow as a product of the life in Christ however they so readily become just another charity. At which stage they are no longer running from the passion of Christ for the weak but as a self perpetuating entity like any other. They are in fact a tent pitched where the glory once was.
How can we be like the wind that blows here and goes there but noone can see where it comes from or where it is going (as someone drive by the spirit is described to be) if we are all sitting in home spun institutions fghting woth the world for a share of tax based hand outs.
Who funds Christs work? Christ himself or the government?
Jesus himself said take no money with you, nor spare shoes… yet this is not how we live. Some where we lost the identity of who and what we are. What we now see is simply the fruit of that loss.
Matt,
I hadn’t heard about this situation, but sadly there are a lot of churches that don’t put the Lord and the Gospel first. Doing good works is great—something every church and every Christian should definitely do. But Jesus told us that we always have the poor with us. The woman who anointed His feet, worshiping Him first and foremost, did the right thing. As churches and individual Christians we should first focus on worshiping Him, depending on Him and not on government funds to do His work.
.-= Lillie Ammann´s last blog ..Thanks to July Commenters =-.
Amen, Lillie. Our church has a saying, “As God guides, He provides.” This means that if He is in something, he’ll supply the need. If not, then it is time to wrap things up!
.-= Matt Keegan´s last blog ..More Back To School Shopping Tips =-.
@Matt Well said! Thanks for carrying my thought out a bit further. If we’re representing Christ, then He’ll supply our needs otherwise we’re nothing but an empty vessel, devoid of the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
Lots of institutions once mightily proclaimed the Lord and are still doing the work while His Spirit clearly has moved on.
This isn’t much different than churches in the US with ’501c3′ tax exempt status, that are then therefore unable to speak about anything having to do with politics. But then again, I wonder sometimes if the church should focus on the gospel and distance itself as far as possible from government?
.-= Rob´s last blog ..December Sun #3 – deleted material #1 =-.
You make a very good point, Rob. Would the U.S. church continue “as is” if its 501(c)(3) status no longer existed? I think quite a few churches would disappear especially those who are dependent on donations to sustain their work.
This might not be a bad thing either as it would force the church to review what she believes and who provides for her needs.