Matthew Harmon

  • The Gospel According to Nahum

    This past Sunday was week 6 in my class on the Gospel according to the Minor Prophets. We worked our way through Nahum, one of the least-known Minor Prophets. Little is known about Nahum of Elkosh; scholars are even unsure where Elkosh was! His name means “comfort/compassion,” which highlights the central message of his prophecy: to comfort Judah with the news of Assyria’s impending destruction. The book was written sometime between the destruction of Thebes in 664 BC (mentioned in Nahum 3:8 as something that has already happened) and the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC (announced in advance by Nahum).

    There are several key biblical-theological themes in Nahum: God’s jealous love for his people, God’s wrath towards his enemies, and God’s power and sovereignty of God are among the most prominent.

    How can we as God’s people today benefit from Nahum? What is it that God has to say to us today through this Minor Prophet?

    I believe the starting point is determining the theological big idea, which I would summarize as follows: God will judge the wicked and restore His people to freedom through His ultimate Warrior-King, Jesus Christ.

    Some people think of God as meek grandfather or perhaps even a Santa Claus like figure who simply winks at sin and gives people what they want. To such people Nahum reminds us that God is a jealous God who will pour out his just wrath on his enemies. But God’s people must never think that they are somehow better than those who stand under God’s wrath, because we only avoid that wrath by the mercy of God. And our experience of mercy required God pouring out the wrath that we deserve for our sin onto his Son, Jesus Christ. God commissions us to call all people to flee the wrath to come and seek refuge in Christ. For there is coming a day when Christ will return and execute the righteous wrath and judgment of God on all his enemies (Revelation 19:11-21).

    Want to hear more? You can check out the audio and the handout below:

    Week 6 – Nahum (AUDIO)

    Week 6 – Nahum (Handout)

  • Should Evangelicals Use the Term "Social Justice"?

    As a follow up to my two posts on the Kingdom of God and social justice, I want to briefly raise the question of whether we as evangelicals should use the phrase “social justice.” Please note that the issue is not whether evangelicals should be involved in social action; my two previous posts should make it clear enough where I stand on that.

    But what about the expression “social justice”? While I am not ready to say evangelicals should completely abandon the phrase (though it might be warranted), I want to raise several concerns that we must think through when using the expression.

    1. What do we mean by justice? Justice is one of those terms that seems self-evident, until we begin to press a bit harder. Whose idea of justice do we mean? What does the implementation of justice look like? Does it mean the redistribution of resources to ensure each has the exact same? What does Scripture say about justice? How much can we expect our efforts at justice in this life to match God’s standards for justice.

    2. The flexibility of the term. The term is used by so many people from so many different perspectives with so many different agendas that it can be used in almost any cause: ending the global sex trade, poverty relief, debt relief, providing clean water, education reform, healthcare reform, gay rights, abortion, job training, welfare, environmentalism, etc. If you are really curious, check out this link, where there are multiple definitions of “social justice” by various folks. When a term is so broad as to include so much, I wonder just how useful it is.

    3. What about mercy? In the midst of an emphasis on “justice,” we must never lose sight of mercy. Strict justice in some situations would preclude the opportunity for people to experience mercy. Many of the people who need the kind of ministries that fall under the umbrella of social justice desperately need mercy. They need someone to help them even though they deserve no help because they are in a situation of their own making.

    Isn’t the beauty of the gospel that justice and mercy meet in the cross (reflect on Rom 3:21-26)? So as believers we should be those who seek to show the mercy of Christ who suffered the justice that was due to us.

    So should we abandon the expression “social justice”? Perhaps. In some cases it has the great potential to muddy the waters. I understand the desire to use common expressions as an attempt to build bridges. But at what cost? And can we not continue to work to show mercy and work for justice without using the expression “social justice” with its potential to mislead? At the end of the day what matters is that our actions adorn the gospel of Jesus Christ and are an outworking of the justice and mercy that we have received at the cross

  • The Kingdom of God and Social Justice, Part 2

    Last week I posted the first five of my theses regarding the relationship of the kingdom of God and social justice. Here now are the second five:

    6. We must realize that our actions are not self-interpreting. There is absolutely a place for being salt and light in a community through good deeds. But unless those deeds are given an interpretation, people will simply not know why we are doing them. There are plenty of groups who do good deeds in the community. Our actions will not truly adorn the gospel unless people are made aware that the actions flow out of our commitment to Jesus Christ. Again, faith comes by hearing, not simply doing good things before people and hoping they make the connection to Christ.

    7. We must recognize the trend towards increasing social action and decreasing evangelism within the church. In many (if not most) evangelical churches today it is easier to recruit people to go do a neighborhood service project than it is to do evangelism. My concern is that a growing number of evangelicals assuage their guilt (if it even exists!) for not sharing the gospel by doing good deeds in the community. While I am not arguing a strict causation, it seems more than coincidental that at a time when evangelical participation in social action is rising rapidly active participation in evangelism falling rapidly.

    8. We must think through and articulate the connection between specific social action and the gospel. One of the reasons that social and action and evangelism are hard to marry is that we have often failed to think through the relationship between specific physical needs and the gospel. When ministering to the hungry we can point them to the bread that truly satisfies. When ministering to those who are poor we can help them to see that their physical poverty is a window into the spiritual condition before God, and their need for spiritual riches that cannot be destroyed. When we think through these kinds of connections the relationship between social action and the verbal communication of the gospel seems much more natural.

    9. We must not allow people’s physical needs to blind us or them to their even greater spiritual needs. This is related but distinct from the previous point. There is a danger in meeting physical needs that we become so engrossed in them that we lose sight of their spiritual needs. By all means we should do what we are able in meeting their physical needs. But if we stop there we are not loving our neighbor in the fullest sense of the term. Regardless of their current situation, they must stand before a holy God on the Last Day, where they will either be welcomed into heaven or banished to hell. Sometimes those who are suffering physically are so consumed by their situation they cannot see the greater spiritual realities; at other times their very neediness in the physical terms opens their eyes to their spiritual condition. Either way, we must remember there is a heaven to be gained and a hell to be avoided for everyone.

    10. We must recognize the challenges that come with working with others of different beliefs. Who should believers partner with in these endeavors? Should we accept government money (which almost always comes with strings)? What about other churches? How much do they have to agree with you doctrinally? What private social agencies with no spiritual affiliation? Where does one draw lines? These are all difficult questions that do not have simple answers. But they must be considered when engaging in social action.

    I still feel as though I have much to learn and think through on these issues, but these ten theses are where I stand today. As always, I welcome your thoughts on these specific theses or the larger issues.

  • The Kingdom of God and Social Justice

    [Recently], I taught a two-day course for the Equip Conference, put on by the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches. As the title suggests, the main burden of the not-for-credit course was to explore what the relationship is and should be between the kingdom of God and social justice. I approached the issue by: (1) providing a brief and necessarily selective historical survey of how the church has engaged these issues; (2) exploring the nature of the kingdom of God as revealed in both the Old and New Testaments; (3) revisiting Niebuhr’s fivefold typology from Christ and Culture and critiques of it; and (4) noting the vague and nebulous definitions of social justice. I also hosted a panel discussion with three individuals involved in ministries that broadly fit underneath this umbrella to hear their perspective on these challenging issues. It was a very enjoyable experience.

    I concluded the class by stating Ten Theses for Further Discussion. I do not intend these as the last word, but rather a statement of key components to this discussion that need to be remembered if we are to be faithful to Christ in these areas. I am posting the first five below; the second five will follow in a later post.

    1. We must learn from church history. There is a rich and varied history of the church engaging these issues, and we are fools to ignore this history. By looking at the past we can benefit from the thinking and practice of those who have gone before us, while hopefully avoiding their mistakes.
    2. We must allow biblical and theological convictions to shape our engagement in social action. There are simply too many individuals and churches that jump into these issues out of compassion devoid of biblical and theological foundations. The responsibility for this rests primarily with the church to provide solid teaching on this area, but also for individual believers to ground themselves in Scripture. Compassion that is not rooted in the gospel will ultimately and inevitably lead to assuming and eventually even denying the gospel in the name of caring for people in this life.
    3. We must not collapse the already/not-yet tension. However one puts this together, we need to be sure to recognize both. Emphasizing the already to the neglect of the not-yet results in people thinking that our efforts usher in the kingdom, or worse yet that the ultimate goal of God is to improve conditions in the life. Emphasizing the not-yet to the neglect of the already results in people thinking that any engagement in social issues is a waste of time because it is all going to burn. Holding the two together holds the promise of engagement in social action while prioritizing eternal issues of heaven and hell.
    4. We must recognize that evangelical engagement with these issues will take different forms within different political, cultural, and social contexts. While it is increasingly popular to champion individuals like Abraham Kuyper and the goal of transforming culture, large numbers of believers simply do not have that option available. Believers in the Middle East and parts of Asia (just to name a few) have little or no access to the various institutions of a culture to effect transformation. Believers in the United States, by contrast, often do. Thus a one-size-fits-all approach to this issue simply cannot and does not work.
    5. We must prioritize proclamation of the gospel without neglecting social action. This is the point where our theology really surfaces. If we are convinced that heaven and hell are ultimate realities that each human being must face, then we will prioritize the communication of the gospel message. This does not mean that every kind deed must be accompanied by a gospel tract, but it does mean an intentional effort to share the gospel in the context of meeting physical needs or addressing social structures. Actions are not self-interpreting; there are plenty of nice moral people who do good things for the community and have no interest in Jesus Christ. If we are to distinguish our efforts from them (and at some level we MUST if we are to be faithful to Christ) there must be communication of the gospel. Faith comes by hearing (Rom 10:17), not by simple observation of good works.

    I’d welcome your thoughts on these first five theses.

  • About Matthew Harmon

    Since 2006 Dr. Matthew S. Harmon has served as Professor of New Testament Studies at Grace College and Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. He is also a member of Christ’s Covenant Church, where he serves on the Preaching Team, leads a small group, and teaches regularly in their Life Education classes.

    Find out more at his blog, Biblical Theology, which is a forum for all matters pertaining to biblical theology (and some entirely unrelated).

    Follow him on Twitter: @DocHarmon