Matthew 25, James 2, and the Homeless

I have been thinking a little recently about the church’s response to homelessness.  Inevitably a couple of “pretty clear” passages come up when discussing this topic.  One is Matthew 25:31-40 the other is James 2:14-17.  These make it obvious, or so it is thought, that the church is not being faithful to the gospel unless it is feeding the poor, clothing the naked, giving clean water to the thirsty.  But is that really what these texts are saying?

Consider Matthew 25:31-40:

[31] “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. [33] And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. [34] Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ [37] Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? [38] And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? [39] And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ [40] And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
(Matthew 25:31-40 ESV)

There you have it.  If I do not give food, water, and clothes, to my fellow man then it’s just like I rejected Jesus.  I can firmly place myself on the side of the unbelieving community.  But if you notice in verse 40 Jesus says, “one of the least of these my brothers”.  This is talking about how we respond to the needs of believers.  This is not a blanket statement that you can put over all of humanity that says, “if you don’t give money or your home to a homeless guy then you don’t know Jesus”, or its less bold variations. 

Now Consider James 2:14-17:

    [14] What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? [15] If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, [16] and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? [17] So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (James 2:14-17 ESV)

This verse is often thought to be saying that if you see somebody that is in need but you don’t meet that need then it is obvious that your faith is dead.  But is that really what this text is saying.  The key word here is, “So also” in verse 17.  This is an analogy.  A well-wish without action is not really a well-wish.  Just like faith without action is dead.  That is what this text is saying.  It may very well be that we can use this analogy and say that if we really want to care for the homeless of the world we will feed them and not simply pray for them.  But this is NOT giving an example of dead faith. 

So, as we continue to look at how we minister to the homeless and broken in our world let’s not do it with a faulty interpretation of these two verses…

The Church’s Response to Homelessness

Yesterday I reviewed Mike Yankoski’s excellent book Under the Overpass.  I promised a little more interaction today.  So, here you go…

Honestly, I have always had a heart for the homeless.  Perhaps it was because I too grew up in poverty.  Maybe it is because God is stirring in my heart to minister to the broken and needy.  But one thing that I have always struggled with is knowing exactly how to minister to the homeless.  What should be the churches response to homelessness? 

I know that Mark Dever has caused quite a stir by some of his statements on the church’s response to societal ills.  Just check out the comments on the Out of Ur videos between Dever and Jim Wallis, or here, and here.  But honestly I think I agree with Dever when he says in sum:

15. We, as a congregation, are not required to take responsibility for the physical needs in the unbelieving community around us. We do have a responsibility to care for the needs of those within our congregation (Matt. 25:34-40; Acts 6:1-6; Gal. 6:2, 10; James 2:15-16; I John 3:17-19) though even within the church, there were further qualifications (e.g., II Thess. 3:10; I Tim. 5:3-16). Paul’s counsel to Timothy (in I Tim. 5:3-16) about which widows to care for seems to indicate that the list was intended for Christian widows. One qualification seemed to be lack of alternative sources of support. Thus the instruction that family members should care for the needy first, if at all possible, shows the kind of prioritization of allowing for families—even of unbelievers—to provide support so that the church wouldn’t have to do it (I Tim. 5:16). We can extrapolate from this to conclude that support that could be provided from outside the church (for instance, from the state) should be preferred over using church funds, thus freeing church funds to be used elsewhere.

To get the full force of his argumentation check out this article by Kevin DeYoung.  I tend to agree with Dever that our primary responsibility as a church is not to end poverty.  Because the heart behind everything he said in that talk, I believe, is this statement: “We as pastors must make sure that matters of secondary importance should not absorb our attention and energy to the detriment of our primary charge to preach the Gospel.”

On the other hand I fear that such an attitude can lead to what happened to Mike Yankoski and Sam Purvis here:

Sam had an idea.  ‘I’m going to ask the pastor if he can help us out with some food.  My stomach is growling.’  He got up and walked away, but was back shortly, looking disgusted. 

‘You wouldn’t believe what just happened,’ he said.  ‘So, I went and asked for the pastor.  He was standing in the back, getting some coffee.  I asked him if he could help us out, if he could hook us up with someone who could feed us.  I told him we didn’t have any money, that panhandling here was bad.’

Sam paused and shook his head.  ‘You know what he said?’  He said, ‘That’s not what we do here.  We’re here to worship.  We can’t confuse our purpose’.  (Yankoski, Under the Overpass, 140-41)

Is it possible that our “preaching the Gospel” is not only with words or with a sermon but by actually loving people and feeding them as we proclaim the gospel?  I agree with Dever that there is a real danger with confusing the gospel with social action.  But I also think that if we are not careful Dever’s take on social justice can lead to a calloused and narrow view of what it actually means to apply the gospel. 

What do you think?  I’m still interacting with some of these things.  I could use your help…