There is no disparity between the two ministries. There is no need to exaggerate about being required to hear the gospel 3 times to get a sandwich. These two ministries are complimentary, just like Paul planting and Apollos watering. Different yet same. Another ministry is yet required to redeem those shackled in this way. Ministry that walks with these individuals one one one on the long journey to maturity.

Having attempted more than once to help homeless persons, one on one, out of their situations, I can tell you it is not so simple and usually the biggest obstacle is the person being helped.

This is just another misplaced, broad brush condemnation of the body of Christ.

Is this just about homeless ministries or is this about the way we do ministry in general. I don't see many people walking with those in need, we send a check, we stand on the other side of the counter at the soup kitchen, but how often do we enter into their lives in an incarnational way?

kevin,
i think that is what rick is trying to say. it is ok if you want to have a chapel service before a meal. that is alright. what i think he is trying to say is that who is going to walk with the homeless or any one for that matter? whether it is the homeless, outcast, poor, homosexual or politician.
living incarnationally is the way of Jesus. i struggle with this, because as a pastor it is hard to get out from under the bubble. but i am working on it. i am so frustrated because i want to live the gospel, not just say it or have another event.

"They've had to listen to it (the gospel) three times a day to get a sandwich. They've heard about Christ, but they haven't seen Christ."

So, they've heard the Good News presented by people who are caring enough to also attend to their physical needs (i.e. by feeding them) and somehow this doesn't constitute showing them Christ?

I don't get it.

My small congregation has chosen to be the hands and feet of Jesus to a young family who would most certainly be homeless without our help and support. It is an extremely complex project and I estimate it will take five years for this family to become fully self-supporting and independent of the financial help of our congregation. It's so much more than food and clothes and employment--it requires a complete re-education and re-orientation for them.

At this point, about 15 families are actively involved in helping and another 20 families have offered extra financial support. That's about 80-90 people engaged in this project and is as much as we can do without sacrificing the other ministries that we believe God has called us to do.

The giving is sacrificial. Time after time, one step forward is followed by five steps backward. But we persist because this is how we live out the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world.

The ministry is also extremely personal. Time with them, teaching them to parent, to budget, to negotiate the horrendously inadequate public health system for the uninsured. We're also teaching them to pray, and to seek the face of God. The parents sit in church on Sunday mornings and soak up the worship and music and preaching and sacraments like two long-dry sponges who are just now discovering life-giving water.

One family in five years really is all we can do. And we are the blessed ones here because we see hope and transformation. Yes, it costs us a lot. So does our salvation. How can we do less?

Sorry, but I'm calling Muggins!

Having worked with the University Police department while I was in college, and having dealt with three types of "homeless" people I would like to make a correction to this "point of view."
The first group of homeless are generally what I would refer to mentally 8-to-10 year olds who should be watched 24-7. This group of adults are "touched" and they need to be treated like the children they are. I wouldn't let my 8-10 year old run the street without supervision, and I think socially it is irresponsible to think that it's okay to let these adults loose. They need help beyond just the "here's a plate of food and let me sit with you and lecture you about Jesus!"

The second group is what I came to know as the professional beggars. They happen to like where they're at, and they are very, very resourceful. They're not interested in being "reintegrated" into society, but they will play that card if it gets them what they want. You can preach Jesus to them all day long, but more often than not, they will prefer the street and handouts than "reintegration" ... sitting with them only keeps them company, very nice, but not very efficient when it comes to resources...which ironically is where this screws over the last group...

The third group is, imo, a small cohort of families who have been, to put a nice fine point to it, been screwed over by either their own mistakes, or by social forces beyond their control. This group I rarely saw on the street, and generally speaking usually was a mother and her children, and in a few cases, the father too. What I saw was that this group was usually moving from shelter to shelter trying despartely to get into a program that would help them "reintegrate" into society, often times to no avail because resources were being stretched to breaking. Yes, resources, like the money that funds them, are finite (thank you so much professional beggars).

And here is the take home message: Our problems are a hell of a lot larger than what any one church can pull off, this issue is huge, and it'll take a community to pull the necessary resources together to get the one group of mentally challenged people in a home where they can be properly taken care of, and the other group who is trying to reintegrate themselves back into society the necessary help to accomplish that task.
For the professional begging class...let them, but recognize that this group is not going to reintegrate if they don't want too, period.

Preaching Jesus is cheap, sitting with a homeless person is even cheaper! Where the costs comes is when people stop being selfish, start being smart about their resources, and taking the adult view that resolution comes from community effort.

It makes perfect sense. When we "tell people the gospel" and force them to listen to a commercial for Christianity to get food, we point to a flawed and unbiblical "Truth is a set of things to believe" philosophy. When we live side-by-side with those we are ministering to and help bear their burdens, we show them that the truth is a person. When you make the distinction between relating to the truth as a set of beliefs and relating to the truth as if it is a person, you understand how misguided it is to simply tell someone what to believe, hand them a sandwich, and send them on their way.

What is really pathetic here is the seeming need for this pastor to denigrate the ministry of others in order to elevate himself. I could see lobbing some criticism at another ministry if that ministry were introducing an unbiblical solution to the problems of the homeless, but it seems in this case that those who present the gospel ("good news") can't win no matter what they do. If this isn't spiritual pride and 'one-upmanship' I don't know what is.

thanks, stephen, i think you are right on. this again is the result of the "conversion" focus, something that, to me, never was all that important in the NT.

i've been thinking about repentance lately - probably because i'm arguing with myself on whether or not i need to do it... :) but the point to me is that repentance as a condition of a "conversion" mentality is misplaced. i really cannot "turn" until the initial saving grace happens.

my point being (yes, it's belabored - sorry) that to point to peter's sermon and say he was interested in "conversions" because the people asked to be "saved" and he gave terse instructions to "repent and be baptized" - i believe neither the people nor peter considered this just a "conversion" but a real view of salvation as paul would ultimately describe it.

so, to rick's point, the "gospel" is too often limited to 1 cor. 15. but we miss that paul essentially goes on to say this is just good news that ultimately saves as it's applied.

i know, i know: physician, heal thyself...

alex, could you repeat the question?...

I started a faith-based ministry that works with the “sheltered” homeless population in Richmond Va. We have been doing this for three years and have worked with over 300 families/individuals.

I want to thank sheerahkahn for clarifying that the homeless population is very diverse. There are those who do not want to help and those are the majority of the folks you see on the street corners (un-sheltered or Chronic homeless). Many are mentally ill or have substance abuse issues that cause them to choose the streets over shelters.

Unfortunately, when you use the term homeless, people automatically envision a scraggly bearded man pushing a buggy and drinking booze out of a paper bag. The vast majority of those I have worked with are single mothers with children, about 30% are victims of domestic violence, more than 60% have a substance abuse problem, and over 40% have a felony conviction.

While I applaud the efforts many of you have shared here, I also feel the pain of those who have tried to help this population and failed. We have had the same experience. About one out of every ten that we befriend, actually appreciate the help and it serves as a means of them becoming self sufficient.

We work in partnership with local shelters. I highly recommend you consider working within the established system in your community. By working with the system, you insure the person you are helping is getting all the services they are entitled to and it also decreases the dependency of the individual on your church.

If there are already shelters, then take the Executive Director out to lunch and ask him/her what the greatest need is. I will tell you in three years, no one from the church has ever called me out of the blue and asked me how they can help. I have to beg for opportunities to get in front of the church. If there are no shelters in your city, then talk to social workers and others who have experience with this population. They are a wonderful resource and you will likely find that many are Christians who would welcome the involvement of the church.

If nothing comes out of the lunch with the non-profit leader/social worker then at least the leader of the organization will be impressed that the church cares.

I can assure you that many of the leaders of non-profits are like me. They are pastors who have responded to a call to work with this difficult population. Please do not forget that there are already others who are working around you. Join in what they are doing even if is simply to affirm them. I promise you, this calling can be a lonely place to minister.

If you want to know more about Embrace and how we are partnering with non-profits and the local churches in our area you can vist our website at www.embracerichmond.org.

Meoldy, I am perplexed by your comment about "unbiblical solutions". Don't you think its biblical to combine action with proclamation- in a holistic way? That's all that Rick is getting at here.

The idea that evangelism should be about incarnated reality rather than abstract propositions is EXTREMELY biblical. If you have a hard time with this idea I'd say that perhaps you're beholden to a modern construction that needs to be reconsidered from a more integrated, historical perspective.

I worked on Skid Row in Los Angeles for a year and found many people who wanted food but no help. I found many people who wanted help along with their food. Everyone got both. For a long time in this country people have come into a mission or shelter get food, warmth and a bed. It is a small price to pay to have to hear the gospel message for such kindness. Today many people want to vilify the only folks who have given a rip for the last 100+ years. Heroes who lived, worked, sweat and prayed for and cried with people whose lives have crashed upon their own and others humanity have suddenly become villains for actually telling people to listen to the only message that has the power to introduce them to a life changing relationship with the God who made them.

Far too many weekend mercy warriors offer opinions without having logged enough time, energy, money and prayer to have an opinion worth much. Good for you Rick, I know and believe you care deeply. But the reality is that these missions were there giving love, food and a message of hope before you were born and will be long after you’re gone. Do what you have been asked to do, when it has great impact and feeds thousands a day three meals a day, when it offers treatment for addictions, when it offers education and vocational training, when it offers housing and family restoration programs all for the price of having to “hear the Gospel” then toss stones. Until then, just do your ministry and say thanks to God for calling you.

What "gospel" are they hearing along with the sandwich? Are they being burdened with a responsibility to believe a set of propositions as alluded to by Stephen, or do they get some truly Good News (free of bad news and obligations)?

Why are we required to divide the poor into worthy and unworthy groups? Is a beggar in the NT different from a homeless person who does not desire reintegration? If I give my sandwich to the latter when he is honestly hungry, have I given it to Christ or was that a misfire?

For many the gospel they are "hearing" the good news that they can be forgiven, find hope for restoration with God and family and society as well. It is the good news that God loves them right where they are. It is the good news that Jesus took the punishment for sin upon himself on the cross. Then it is seen in the giving of food, bedding, training, rehab, reunification with family. So what if someone says "hey, listen to this great message, when we are through I have a sandwich for you."

Darren,

As to your being perplexed about 'unbiblical solutions', I think you need to read my comment again. Giving a person a meal (as well as housing, job training, etc.) along with the gospel message seems pretty holistic to me. Should the gospel message be avoided in the name of Jesus?

Melody,

Sorry if I misunderstood you but in your original comment you seemed very frustrated with Rick's post, when all he was calling for was loving, Christ-like action combined with gospel proclamation. I'm not sure what he said to provoke the vehemenence in your response.

Darren, Methinks the word 'vehemence' is what in the publishing business is called 'purple prose' for overstating something. Where was my 'vehemence'? When I read this statement by Rick, "They've heard about Christ, but they haven't seen Christ", and it refers to the people who have been in the trenches giving the gospel along with bread and shelter, then maybe the word 'vehement' might apply.

Leoskeo has responded beautifully. Would that my comments were as eloquent as his.

Melody, no offense, but when it comes the following quote, I think the word "vehemenence" applies:

"What is really pathetic here is the seeming need for this pastor to denigrate the ministry of others in order to elevate himself."

And I just don't see what in Rick's comments would provoke such a _______ response. You pick you adjective.

As a reader of LOTS of blog everyday, (I'm am church consultant) I can tell you that the base of this entire conversation is happening throughout the U.S. Christian church. What is interesting is that for the past 40 or 50 years the church was easily in two camps: Liberal and Evangelical. If you were liberal, you fed the homeless, and lived your faith, but did not talk about it. If you were Evangelical, you shared the gospel by your words. There were all the expected political positions and stands on issues that we grew up with. Evangelicals were republican, Liberals were democrats. What has happened is that the lines are gone. Someone who believes deeply in the inerrantcy of the Bible (former domain of the Evangelicals) is starting an intercity mission simply to meet physical needs. We have a very human need to be able to categorize people, groups and actions so that we feel we can make sense of our world. We are living in a time of redefining what it means to be a Christian.

I just wanted to say that the comments were taken out of context. As I read my own words out of context I see that they come across as very arrogant. I want to make sure to say that I have a lot of respect for the local ministries here in Portland that are providing meals daily for our local homeless. I was not trying to imply that thier efforts were wrong or in some way not about the Gospel. I wanted to suggest that the church may do more along the way or relationship. Imago does not help that many homeless people on a weekly basis but those that we do help we find their greatest need is lonliness. I don't think that we should only serve people food when the listen to what we have to say. I think that reduces the Gospel. That is simply my opinion. I apologize for sounding as though I were putting down other ministries, I don't think the full article gave off that impression. There was no sense that I felt like we were trying to say were doing it better than others just perhaps with a different focus. When Leadership Journal asked to do an article I said yes and answered thier questions. I think they did a fine job on the article, but out of contextit may be causing some confusion as to what I was trying to say.

Rick McKinley
Imago Dei Community

FROM THE EDITORS:

We are glad that so many people are engaging this conversation, but Rick McKinley's comment above is a helpful reminder. This feature is, after all, called "Out of Context." The intention is not to present a fully developed idea with a well-rounded theological foundation, but to display the more provocative statements in the current issue of Leadership to ignite interest.

McKinley's interview is worth reading in its entirety, and doing so would answer many of the questions posted above. The editors who visited Imago Dei and spoke with Rick were deeply impressed with both the ministry's passion for the marginalized and Rick's balanced understanding of the Gospel.

Thanks for visiting Out of Ur, and keep up the conversation.

UrL

Rick,
Thanks for clarifying your comments. I know you have a broad appreciation of what ministry is. I had the chance to meet you at Q, and I know some of the other ministry guys that you hang out with. Those relationships and desire to see a larger context for what it means to be "Christian" in this world are part of the significant conversation that is now taking place.

Is it possible with the mass confusion of different christian religions, Jesus' words in the gospels were taken out of context, after the gospels.

Consider the word "Heathen". It was used a million times in the OT and a million times "after" the gospels. Jesus never pointed His finger at people and stated, "YOU HEATHEN"! Jesus stated, beleive the best of every person.

Also, it is wicked, weak flesh that believes Jesus did not bind satan, posted "after" the gospels.

Also, it is a respect issue, a "Hierarchy" that anyone would come to Jesus who became sin for us. Yes He was God in the flesh. But God in spirit is sinless. That is why we do not go directly to God.

we've got to stop analyzing the life out of good things. Helping the homeless is good. So go do it.

Lynda, can you help us with a chapter and verse where Jesus said, "beleive the best of every person"? Thanks.