“The Poor” - Helping without Hurting
Bryan Chappell of Covenant Seminary asks the question: “How can a local church make a difference, and how do individual Christians meaningfully reflect Christ’s grace when the disparities of wealth and power in our world are so great?”1 As our leadership team begins to lay the groundwork for church planting in Philadelphia, we have had to try to wrestle with this question in a practical way rather than the typical way of theorizing from the relative safety and comfort of middle-class suburbs and seminary classrooms. Located in a transitional urban neighborhood where urban blight meets white flight, we are confronted by challenges regarding our biblical responsibility to the poor. We are not experts in urban ministry and poverty alleviation. We recognize the complexity of the causes of poverty and confess the failure of many Christians, including ourselves, to address and to engage this issue. Some people are born into poverty through no fault of their own and find themselves trapped in an inescapable and infernal cycle. Others fall into poverty as a result of calamity including natural disasters, unemployment, health problems, or traumatic experiences. No easy solutions are forthcoming. Our response must be rooted in the Bible as we seek to lay a theological foundation for our engagement in dealing with societal problems which in reality are spiritual problems.
We are not utopian dreamers with illusions about what we can do to relieve misery in its many forms with our meager resources and limited wisdom. Yet we remain compelled by the Gospel to not cast a blind eye toward those in need since we are also needy even if in different ways. We cannot ignore the Old Testament prophetic voices and the New Testament witness “to do good to all men” (Gal. 6:10). Poverty is about broken relationships, and we are all broken in some ways. Those materially better off than others still face brokenness and impoverishment whether spiritually, economically, or socially. And even if we have much to offer as a church to our community, we also declare that we have much to learn from our community. We do not enter the community with pat answers. We enter to listen and learn from the experience and wisdom of those who live in poverty and of those who serve their communities.
It is easy to fall on one side or another of extreme perspectives on the reasons for poverty. Does poverty result from a lack of individual responsibility (a standard conservative response), or unjust social structures (a standard liberal response)? The answer is not either-or. It is both-and. There are those in poverty due to wrong choices, lack of discipline, skewed priorities and wasteful habits. But that description fits many who were born with a silver spoon in privileged conditions and yet have abundant resources for which they did not labor and which they squander. There are also those in poverty due to systemic political, economic, and social inequities or ill-conceived social programs which hinder more than help the impoverished.
Whatever the causes for poverty, it may be time to re-examine our responses in light of Scripture in order to guide our uneasy consciences and to no longer remain captive to the particulars of history which have led us astray in this domain.
In declaring the Gospel we must declare that it touches and transforms every area of life. It will no longer suffice to neatly divide and compartmentalize the human condition as if the Gospel has no power beyond the saving of souls. The power to save souls is the greatest and most important aspect of Gospel proclamation. However, word proclamation and deed proclamation cannot be separated.
The appearance of the social gospel in the early 20th century continues to haunt Bible-believing Christians. They are often unaware that evangelical Christians who lived before the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversies did not hold to the stark dualism that characterizes and paralyzes many Christians and churches today who live in the shadow of the social gospel boogeyman. It is true that there were theological aberrations among those who replaced proclamation of the Gospel with deeds of mercy. There were many who did good works under the banner of social justice which replaced the banner of the cross. In reaction to that drift there was a wholesale abandonment of “word and deed” ministry and the unfortunate and unbiblical emphasis on verbal proclamation minus deed engagement. In the name of separation from liberals who no longer preached Christ, many Christians avoided being associated with any whiff of social gospel influence, escaped neighborhoods in the throes of change and disruption, and fled to safer communities and fortress churches.
Apart from occasional forays into cities for relief efforts to distribute sandwiches to the homeless or assist at rescue missions, enough to soothe troubled consciences, there has been a tragic absence of long-term engagement with the oppressed and downtrodden. The common retort that “we just preach the gospel” must be seen as an incomplete and truncated understanding of the gospel. Tim Keller, in his assessment of Jonathan Edwards’ “Christian Charity” from 2 Cor. 8:8-9, argues persuasively “that if you grasp substitutionary atonement in both your head and your heart, you will be profoundly generous to the poor” and that “all sinners saved by grace will look at the poor of this world and feel that in some way they are looking in the mirror.”2
There is a yearning in our hearts to serve others and to make a difference in the lives of people through planting churches that preach the glorious Gospel of salvation and effectively engage and minister to the community. We’ve experienced God’s rich grace toward us and want to confront others with the claims of Christ. At the same time, however, we acknowledge our inability to bring about lasting transformation through human endeavors. Our best efforts may be well-meaning yet misguided. But we are confident that the Gospel which brings forgiveness and spiritual liberation also provides the power to transform lives and to enable believers to live life as God desires. New life in Christ may not bring about immediate release from poverty.
Yet with the restoring of broken relationships which exist between individuals and God and between individuals and their community, a new direction can be set in motion that impacts every area of life.
We are cognizant that not everyone will respond to the Gospel and that not all who respond to the Gospel will immediately or necessarily experience dramatic changes in their economic situation. Moving from poverty to material prosperity is not the goal and cannot be promised, although material betterment may take place. The end in view is spiritual transformation in recognition of the lordship of Christ in every area of life and the extension of that lordship, however imperfectly, into our communities. While we look for that eternal city whose Builder and Maker is God, we labor and serve in our city that we and others might experience by grace a foretaste of what God has prepared for his people.
Notes
1 Back cover endorsement of When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor…and Yourself by Steve Corbett & Brian Fikkert.
2 http://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/33-3/the-gospel-and-the-poor
Dr. Stephen M. Davis is associate pastor and director of missions at Calvary Baptist Church (Lansdale, PA) and adjunct professor at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA). He holds a B.A from Bob Jones University, an M.A. in Theological Studies from Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, FL), an M.Div. from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA), and a D.Min. in Missiology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL). Steve has been a church planter in Philadelphia, France, and Romania. He and his wife Kathy recently moved back to Philadelphia to plant Grace Church with his brother John and his wife Dawn and three other couples. Steve’s views do not necessarily represent the position of Calvary Baptist Ministries.
- 50 views
[Ted Bigelow] Thanks, brothers, for your comments. I’m grateful.Your distinction here is a very important qualifier and one I have noticed is met mostly with antagonism and not appreciation though it is clearly marked out in Scripture. It seems as if such boundaries are in the way of the objective and if so they will realign Scripture to support their cause and vilify in some form those taking issue with the proposition(s). And for anyone reading this is not to be construed as a comment on the topic itself, rather the construction of subsequent arguments.
But your position, i.e., that the church is to be involved in caring for the poor of the world, as a biblical ministry of the organization called “the church,” suffers a fatal flaw, for us who look to Scripture for guidance on the church.
There is no example, or command, in Scripture for the church, as the organized local church, to do this. Yes, we do this individually, and yes, we do it collectively. What we aren’t commanded, or shown in Scripture is the local church, as an organization under elders, that practices baptism and communion, and cares for its members, caring for the poor or indigent of the world.
In this regard, there is as much support in Scripture for the organized church caring for the poor or indigent of the world as there is for infant baptism.
In our church we are involved in works of mercy both individually and collectively to those outside our church (both regenerate and unregenerate), but such works are not part of official church ministry, nor are church offerings used to support these.
Now, c’mon. Dismissing the distinctions between individual vs. church responsibility blurs the issue. Example: it is not individuals who keep a list of dependent widows, but the organized church (1 Tim. 5:9). Or do you think each individual should as well? To claim that a distinction between the individual and the organized church “compartmentalizes Scripture” only dismisses what is apparent in these texts.
I read thoroughly your response to the issue, Ted, and want to take time to recognize your avoidance of rationalism and pragmatism to the injury of theological boundaries and distinctions. I find too often appeals in such forms (with less adherence to the dictates, both implied and explicit, of Scripture and the assigned hierarchy and boundaries of divine institutions along with their organizational intent and limits) are too commonly employed today and accepted with little recognition of their use by those utilizing them. As well it is somewhat surprising to hear these coming from many who arrive from a background that at one time was marked by capacity to audit and recognize such tendentious curves in their own arguments and give the appropriate nod when effective counters manifest such weak elements of their case.
Alex, obviously you and I agree, and I trust that where and when I veer from Scripture, you will be there to correct me. Ultimately, this comes down to a question of authority in the church, no?
It is especially hard to comment on this topic during the events of the past days. My heart, and tears, are in Haiti. We have two families in our church from the DR, and this strikes close to home.
Joel, I really agree that good works are seen by others. They just aren’t intentionally public works. But that is such a minor point. The heart of the issue is individual response to the word of God, and the church response to the word of God. Some Scriptures are prescriptive to the church, and others are prescriptive to the individual. You, and others in this debate, wish to claim that the church is obligated to care for the poor. But to this I am simply asking for either an example, or a command to that effect from Scripture. I have yet to receive one. In my mind that in itself is telling.
Your critique of prescriptive vs. descriptive is pithy and strong. Thanks, it made me think. But perhaps you have missed my point because you have not seen my prior distinction between responsibilities laid on the church by the apostles, vs. those laid upon individual Christians. I have supplied several examples above that I think are fairly easy to understand.
BTW, Joel, there are many instances of believers doing evangelism, or being instructed on how to do it in Scripture - 1 Thes. 1:8, Phil. 2:14, Col. 4:6, 1 Peter 3:15. Perhaps you might consider these passages, and other like them, for you wrote, “All the evidence demonstrates in scripture that the normal person in the pew should only live good lives that adorn the gospel.”
But apart from that, I’m greatly privileged to be on the same team with you, and you have my heart felt prayers in your ministry.
Discussion