mingdao :: mosaic

Written by Lee Strobel

Hollywood-bad-boy-turned-Christian Stephen Baldwin raised more than a few eyebrows when he dared to question U2's seemingly sacrosanct front man, Bono, in his book The Unusual Suspect (FaithWords).

“Look, Bono, I'm a huge fan of yours,” Baldwin wrote. “I just think ... that you would do far more good if you preached the Gospel of Jesus rather than trying to get Third World debt relief.”

Some people said Baldwin went too far. But did he?

We're seeing increased social action among evangelical churches. There's a heightened interest in addressing poverty and injustice on the other side of the planet—as well as on the other side of the street. American churches have launched major initiatives to help deal with the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

As Newsweek observed, megachurch pastors who built their congregations on local evangelism over the last three decades “are turning their focus further outward” and addressing “larger issues worldwide.” The reporter wrote: “New life [is] being breathed into the evangelical community by ... people who are making social causes ( Africa , poverty, HIV/AIDS) the centerpiece of their faith.”

Obviously, it's a good thing when influential Christians bring help and hope to those who are suffering. After all, Matt. 4:23 says Jesus went around “healing every disease and sickness among the people.” He called his followers to be compassionate toward those who are in physical need.

But that very same verse also says Jesus was “preaching the Good News of the Kingdom.” He knew that tending to the sick and disenfranchised would provide only temporary relief. Indeed, every person Jesus healed is long dead. Ultimately, their biggest need was spiritual, because they would be spending a lot more time in eternity than in this life.

In short, this is a “both/and” issue, not an “either/or” proposition. Should we care about Third World debt, rampant disease, illiteracy and the ever-multiplying number of AIDS orphans? Absolutely! And should we be concerned about the eternities of people in India , Indonesia and across the street from us? Of course!

But problems occur when the scales tilt too much in either direction. When we reach out to help others but don't tell them about their need for a Savior, we're cheating them out of an opportunity for the spiritual healing that they may not even know they need. And when we preach the Gospel of love but turn a callous eye toward human suffering, we're failing to live out the compassion of Christ as he told us we should.

Christian leaders should carefully monitor how those scales are balanced in their own church. In some cases, I'm troubled by how the evangelistic value has dramatically dissipated as churches move toward a “social Gospel.” After all, there are always subtle pressures to slack off on evangelism. Why?

First, the media and community applaud pastors who lead teams to serve the poor. Public recognition feels good, and this can reinforce pastors' commitment to social action. But let's be clear: The secular world sees zero value in bringing the Gospel to the spiritually needy.

Second, it's often easier to motivate church members to serve the poor in Mexico than to share the Gospel with their colleagues at work. I've seen far too many Christians who are more than willing to travel halfway around the world to volunteer for a week in an orphanage, but who cannot bring themselves to take the personal risk of sharing Jesus with the co-worker who sits day after day in the cubicle right next to them.

The truth is that when we serve others as Jesus did, we also open up more opportunities to share the Gospel. As the old saying goes, “We have to be good news before we share the Good News.”

But we must share the Good News! Otherwise, we're merely humanitarians who are no different than the Kiwanis Club. And our mission is infinitely more important than that.

http://www.leestrobel.com/newsletters/2008DECEMBER/shortchangingthegoodnews.htm