Proceed with Caution
How the Definitions of “Neighbor” and “Foreigner” Shape the Mission of the Church
In the Christian faith we have first tier doctrines— beliefs that are essential for salvation, such as salvation by faith, the dual nature of Jesus, and his virgin birth and death for our sins and resurrection.
Then we have second tier doctrines. These are beliefs which are found in the Bible but in which faithful Christians disagree.
Finally we have third tier doctrines, which are generally matters of conscience.
Now, regarding second tier doctrines:
Some of our second-tier doctrines have the same endpoint but have different methods of getting there:
Eschatology: Christ is coming back to reign upon the earth forever, but how and when remain debatable
Baptism: Folks should be baptized, but, again, how and when remain debatable
Communion: Christians should take Communion but how often is debatable
The Church: is she elected? Or is there free will? Debatable but the endpoint of a Church of God’s people is the same, regardless of how they get there
Same endpoint. Different ways of getting there.
This pattern changes tremendously when we consider the definitions of “neighbor” and “foreigner.” That is, the debatable definitions of those two words do not lead Christians to the same place. Depending on the definitions of “neighbor” and “foreigner,” the Church’s endpoints are two totally different places.
Covenant Identity
When the definition of neighbor or godly foreigner is understood in covenant terms—as someone who belongs to or is being drawn into the covenant people of God—we begin to see the grand sweeping biblical narrative more clearly.
Scripture tells the story of a God who has always been drawing all people to himself in a special, covenantal, family relationship. From Abraham onward, God forms a people for himself and promises that through this covenant family, the nations of the earth will not only be blessed but will also be included. The Family of God is a family for all people.
Under this framework, the mission of God’s people becomes clear. The church exists as a covenant family whose life is centered on the worship of the living God. And because God desires all people to come to him, the proper response of his people is evangelism—reaching, inviting, and drawing others into that covenant relationship, making worshippers of his Great Name.
Biblically defined Good Works then flow out of this worship as I discuss here.
But when the neighbor or foreigner is defined as anybody at all anywhere (elderly, immunocompromised, public school children….), the target shifts. Under this definition, you do not get a God who primarily and spiritually redeems all sorts of people to himself. He’s not wooing the nations to himself through his people with the gospel. Instead, you get a God who appears primarily concerned with the physical needs of humankind— this is the sort of God that secular governments and various religions can worship.
The proper response of this sort of God’s people— and not only of God’s people but secular governments, as well— then, becomes not evangelism but altruism. And the church—rather than being a family of worshippers seeking to gather the nations into worship—gradually becomes a “do-gooders” club.
More succinctly, when the definition of neighbor and godly foreigner implies the Covenant, then only Christians can fulfill the mandate.
But when neighbor and foreigner imply Altruism, Christians, governments, and atheists can all fulfill the mandate.
The Loss of Covenant
This, then, is the worst of it.
In the first interpretation, we are a covenant people in a covenant relationship seeking to bring others into covenant worship. Our mission flows naturally from who we are and what we do: worship. Because God has drawn us into his family, we invite others to join the family as well. We are transformed into his image. Our lives reflect his holiness and goodness. We care for his children and seek out the lost that they may be adopted into this holy family.
In the second interpretation, however, the covenant identity itself begins to disappear. Either it is lost entirely or it becomes functionally moot.
What does the covenant matter if the aim of the Christian life and of Christian definitions is simply humanitarian and political good? That is, what does the covenant matter if what is required of the Church and her people is not repentance, evangelism and worship but vaccinations, political amnesty, and the abolition of the 2nd Amendment? In this framework, the mission of the church has little to do with a covenant-keeping God and much more to do with philanthropy and political activism.
And the problem is obvious: anyone can do philanthropy and political activism.
Muslims do philanthropy and activism.
Hindus do philanthropy and activism.
Secular organizations do philanthropy and activism.
Even the Church of Satan does philanthropy and activism.
Acts of charity and compassion are not uniquely Christian. In a post-Christian society, culture has kept its preferred Judeo-Christian ethics and dropped the covenant. Now we see all sorts of people doing all sorts of good and calling it “being on mission.”
But the church was never meant to be a mere philanthropic society. The people of God exist because God has entered into a covenant with them. They are gathered by the gospel, sustained by worship, and sent into the world to invite others into that same covenant relationship.
The covenant people of God have covenant-minded definitions that aid them in their covenant-minded mission.
Anything other than that leads to the abdication our covenant identity and mission. Anything other than covenant-minded definitions eventually (maybe not now, maybe in a generation or two, but also maybe sooner) leads to humanitarianism and secular activism.
Conclusion
It is important for me to say clearly that the definition of “neighbor” and “foreigner” is not a first-tier doctrine. The “correct” definition of those words is not necessary for salvation. Faithful, godly Christians may disagree about how certain passages should be interpreted.
Yet unlike other second-tier doctrines, these definitions simply do not lead to the same endpoint by different means (as do baptism and eschatology). Instead, they lead to two entirely different trajectories for the church. There is very little common ground between a church that utilizes covenant-minded definitions and a church that uses humanitarian-minded definitions. One vision ends with the gathering of the nations into worship. The other ultimately ends with humanitarian or political activity that requires no covenant, no gospel, and no church.
And since these definitions determine the trajectory of the church, I say: proceed with great caution.
Why Covenant Definitions Matter
I think it’s incredibly important that we understand the Bible through a lens of covenant-minded definitions. To do this we must regain and defend such covenant-minded definitions.
Covenant-minded definitions cannot be co-opted by secular presidents, secular organizations, or secular causes. Covenant-minded definitions cannot be co-opted by different religions— because covenant-minded definitions are foolish and antithetical to those who are perishing. What I mean is, governments and various religions do not like and cannot identify with covenant-minded definitions. That’s why they absolutely cannot and will not use them. They need humanitarian-minded definitions.
Only covenant-minded Christians have covenant-minded definitions.
Therefore, as Christians, we must understand the themes and topics of the Bible to be inherently and exclusively Christian, and therefore covenantal.