Tim Keller on the Gospel and the Poor
Tim Keller wrote an outstanding article in the Dec. 2008 Themelios (33-3) titled “The Gospel and the Poor.” This is one of the finest presentations of the relation of word and deed that I have come across. In the article Keller notes several persuasive arguments of Jonathan Edwards in his well-known work Charity and Its Fruits. Keller points out two objections that Edwards anticipates with regard to caring for the unkind and irresponsible. Keller observes:
Edwards takes on two other objections: “I don’t want to help this person because he is of an ill temper and an ungrateful spirit” and “I think this person brought on their poverty by their own fault.” This is an abiding problem with helping the poor. We all want to help kindhearted, upright people, whose poverty came on without any contribution from them and who will respond to your aid with gratitude and joy. Frankly, almost no one like that exists. And while it is important that our aid to the poor really helps them and doesn’t create dependency (see my last section), Edwards makes short work of this objection by again appealing not so much to ethical prescriptions but to the gospel itself.
Christ loved us, was kind to us, and was willing to relieve us, though we were very evil and hateful, of an evil disposition, not deserving of any good . . . so we should be willing to be kind to those who are of an ill disposition, and are very undeserving. . . .
If they are come to want by a vicious idleness and prodigality; yet we are not thereby excused from all obligation to relieve them, unless they continue in those vices. If they continue not in those vices, the rules of the gospel direct us to forgive them . . . . [For] Christ hath loved us, pitied us, and greatly laid out himself to relieve us from that want and misery which we brought on ourselves by our own folly and wickedness. We foolishly and perversely threw away those riches with which we were provided, upon which we might have lived and been happy to all eternity.16
Edwards goes on to argue, wisely, that for the sake of children within families, sometimes we will need to sustain aid to families in which the parents do not turn away from their irresponsible behavior.17
In short, Edwards teaches that the gospel requires us to be involved in the life of the poor–not only financially, but personally and emotionally. Our giving must not be token but so radical that it brings a measure of suffering into our own lives. And we should be very patiently and nonpaternalistically open-handed to those whose behavior has caused or aggravated their poverty. These attitudes and dimensions of ministry to the poor proceed not simply from general biblical ethical principles but from the gospel itself.
May God grant us grace to demonstrate the fruit of the Gospel in our lives in self-sacrificing mercy to others.
About Post Author
Well said!
Men,
Two questions:
1. In Scripture, how often does “poor” mean spiritually poor or physically impoverished?
2. When the word poor is used, how often is it referring to those whithin the covenant community?
I’m not asking these questions with a hidden hand. I know someone will surely post an entry quoting a verse which points to the physical poor – I’m not really interested in that. What I’m really after is a biblcial perspective on “poverty”.
Matt
Three items:
1. Does the Bible make distinctions between kinds of poor (e.g. those who could work only if they would, and those would work only if they could)?
2. Does a biblically-grounded diaconal ministry allow for instruction and an expectation of maturation, and not just giving out stuff?
3. Keller is not the only one who has written on gospel-driven diaconal ministry for the poor. I would recommend the various writings of George Grant on these issues (e.f. Bringing in the Sheaves) and Marvin Olasky’s The Tragedy of American Compassion. This is not a wholesale endorsement; however, theirs is a view from which we can profit much.
By Keller’s standards, the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 5 on aid to widows was wrong.
Isn’t the Reformed hermeneutic to let clear passages interpret obscure ones? So when Scripture gives specific instructions about criteria for assistance, should we then turn to passages about the immensity of the generosity of God’s grace?
Have any of the guys who are raising criticism have actually read the article? Keller clearly led off with the verse in Galatians that calls us to “do good to ALL MEN, especially to those off the household of faith.”
Nick et al.
Two things:
First: I wasn’t going to raise this for fear us going down this particular road – it is interesting how Keller moves very quickly from doing good to “all men” to the issue of the “poor”. Paul does not equate the two in a one-to-one manner, as Keller appears to.
Second: I’m also not sure that one is able to equate the work of God in salvation of the ungrateful, with the work of aiding the poor who maybe ungrateful. (My previous questions, re: who are the poor?, are still outstanding in this discussion.) For the work of God in man leads him to repentance and a changed life. If a sinner claimed he was regenerated, and still lived in his sin as before, he would not be allowed into church membership, or if he were a member, he would be disciplined. The work with the “poor” more often (I would suggest) does not lead to such a radical change. How do we continue helping them in light of no change? We then get into issues of stewardship, investing money, time and energy in a non-changing situation.
That is NOT say that we shouldn’t help the poor. It really asks the questions, is there a fair comparison here, and how far does this comparison stretch?
Again I raise this, not with a hidden hand, but simply for illumination.
blessings
Matt
Nick, now that I’ve taken a look at the article — which offered no surprise — I’m still raising my point. Keller’s argument makes a person unable to understand Paul in 1 Tim. 5 when he gives clear guidelines for giving aid to widows (mind you, a class of people along with orphans, rich in biblical theological significance). From Keller’s perspective, Paul’s teaching is not prodigal. But Paul is the clear passage on poverty, not Christ healing a blind man.
Hi All–
There certainly must be guidelines for giving to the poor. As I say about 2/3 of the way through the article–we are not to simply give to anyone who asks, certainly not if the giving helps them continue in irresponsibility and sin. (Matt and dgh may have missed that. I know it goes by fast.)
If you read J.Edwards’ discourse, he is wonderfully theological about how we can be both generous and still draw the poor to make needed changes in their lives. Edwards says that our aid–to start with–should not be conditional, but it should become conditional later. This parallels God’s justifying and sanctifying grace. God’s grace comes to us not because we are ‘deserving’. It comes to anyone who repents. Therefore, Edwards argues, we may give aid to people even who have brought themselves into need through (what Edwards calls) ‘vicious prodigality’. However, he adds, just as God’s justifying, unmerited grace directs us toward holy living, so we should not continue our aid if the poor person continues to act responsibly. Once Edwards says this, he quickly adds that we must not expect or demand that people change overnight habits that they have learned over a lifetime. He shows sensitivity to the diversity of cases as well. We says may need to keep helping a family with some irresponsible members for the sake of other members of the family who are the proper objects of mercy, and so on.
In all this Edwards show tremendous practical balance married to theological wisdom.
So I understand the concerns of Matt Holst and dgh, because in the article I don’t go into detail about how our mercy to the poor parallels the way God’s grace works. Nevertheless, if they look at the full discourse of Edwards on which my article is based, I think they’ll get some good answers to their concerns.
While this is not always an easy subject to approach, and I certainly believe that the Lord calls us to care for the poor and needy of the household of faith first and foremost, the Bible is clear that we are to “do good to all men,” “bless those that persecute us,” “be imitators of God as dear children,” “care for widows and orphans,” etc.
There is often a deficiency in my own heart with regard to real, Gospel driven, Spirit-wrought care for those who are suffering from the misery of sin and from the situations that arise in a fallen world. I believe that men like John Skilton, in the Reformed church of our day, saw these things as well, and, being moved with compassion, sought to sincerely care for their neighbors in word and deed. I don’t know many pastors/theologians who were as solidly orthodox as Dr. Skilton, but who also had a heart like the Savior. It is not enough to only greet those who greet us, and minister to those who we want to minister to. There are nuanced guidelines in Scripture, as Daryl has pointed out, but we need to be careful not to overreact to what we believe to be an inappropriate emphasis on “mercy ministry.” I wish I were more caring. I have often prayed that the Lord would make me more like John Skilton, and ultimately more like Christ. I think Dr. Keller’s point about Edwards’ argument is well made. “Charity and It’s Fruits” is a work that everyone should read. Essentially, it is an exposition of what the apostle Paul and John teach in their epistles.
Matt,
I think you are right to point out that often the word “poor” in Scripture does refer to spiritually poor rather than to the financially poor. I also have concerns that Old Testament verse are quoted illegitimately to promote mercy ministry in the city, when in fact they were commands given to the church with regard to other members of the church. This is one of the sticky issues surrounding the temporal, typical nature of the church/nation in the Old Covenant. But, I want to be careful not to be like the Pharisees and Scribes (and I am certainly not saying you are like them Matt!) who walked past the Samaritan (not a covenant member incidentally) when they saw him wounded and bleeding on the side of the road because of a theology that is not as compassionate as our Lord’s. That’s all!
Pingback : Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Do Tim Keller and Norman Shepherd Live in the Same Neighborhood?
Sorry, but I’m still unpersuaded and invoking Edwards isn’t going to help me anyway. And here’s the problem. It’s not just the implicit call by Keller for churches to engage in relief shelters, soup kitchens, etc. that many churches cannot do — and if they don’t then they aren’t being true to their justification by faith alone. It’s also that he has so clearly tied ministry to the poor to the coming of the kingdom that he gets in trouble when he says that churches should spin off voluntary associations or cooperate with other agences for development efforts and social reform. If this is about the kingdom, why would Christians use non-kingdom agencies to usher in the kingdom?
Sorry to sound so negative, but this is not a new problem that Christians are facing. The Social Gospel tried to minister to the poor for the sake of ushering in the kingdom. It wasn’t pretty. Now “we” conservatives think we can do it better. But the original social gosperlers were evangelical and that commitment to social Christian turned them liberal. Simply saying it can’t happen here doesn’t make it so.
(BTW, not to be missed is that Christians do care for the poor by not creating poor people. The parents who rear and provide for children are doing a tremendous service to society by not creating people who are dependent on others. Sometimes treating poverty is not just responding to the poor. It is creating conditions that generate stability and independence.)
I think your BTW-point will likely be lost, Darryl, on a general outlook that really doesn’t understand the difference between activism and being active, fixing and charity, transforming and participating, extra-ordinary and ordinary, glory and cross.
Daryl,
I think your point about the social Gospel seeking to usher in the kingdom is well made, but I do not think this means there is not a biblical imperative to minister to the poor, both within and outside the church.
Zrim, let’s see if I can wax paradoxical.
Nick, here’s the paradox: if being poor is a virtue, as our Lord talks about it in the Sermon on the Mount, aren’t we hurting the kingdom by alleviating poverty? Of course, I’m being ironic, but the tensions between material and physical poverty seem to be writ large in Scripture, such that an imperative to minister “physically” to the poor needs all sorts of qualifications.
In other words, the call to turn the gospel into a war on poverty can easily appeal to middle-class, borgeois Americans who don’t want to be perceived as lacking compassion.
Nick,
I don’t think there is much disagreement that there is a place, even command, for charity outside the church. The point actually seems to be that the over-arching language of “redeeming the city†seems to transform charity into social gospel.
But, heck, I don’t let the misguided religious fantasies of my transformer church keep me from dropping off bags of hand-me-downs for Family Assistance and setting up cots after the AM service for the homeless program.
Men
Wow I thought this conversation was done. Well I’m back in.
I think, from my perspective there are two motivations for asking the questions I’ve raised.
First, a confession. Last night, and the night before I gave money (very small amount) to a beggar sat on the streets of Cambridge city centre. I did it because my conscience had been pricked by this discussion. I did not have the time to stop and take him to a cafe and talk to him about the gospel (I was rushing to another appointment)- perhaps I should have done that. I have to say I have been confronted with my own selfishness in the last week or so, particularly as a result of this dscussion. I don’t know if what I did was a) right and b) the best thing to do. But I know his (physical and spiritual) need was greater than mine, and I can afford a few pounds to give to someone who slept on the cold and wet streets of Cambridge for the last few nights.
Second, as the discussion has highlighted there are many diffculties in this discussion. Nick has gone a little way to answering the big question “when are the poor not the poor?”. I would speculate that most of the directions in the OT concerning the poor refer to the poor within the covenant. (Nick BTW, if you are refering to the “good Samaritan” passage, the person who was half dead was not the Samaritan, rather the Samaritan gave aid to that person, who probably was a covenant member. Just a detail).Yet there is still that hankering in us (which some, like me, are too able to supress) to help the poor we see on the streets.
It is clear to me that helping the impoverished, whether in or out of the covenant, if divorced from gospel witness is simply an empty work. There MUST be some kind of gospel angle in this work if it is to be a)accpetable before God and b) to have any soul -changing effect.
I have concerns about stewardship, helping God’s people first – which is a clear mandate – and several other issues. But I don’t want to hide behind those “issues” so that my life is that bit easier. Doing so allows me to be distant and often unloving. The issues quickly become a theological justification for not muddying my hands with the sin of society.
I feel my weakness in both areas. I agree with Nick. My heart is spiritually impoverished and cold to those who are outcasts (by choice or circumstance) of our society. I feel the need for guidance on this issue.
Blessings
Matt