I'd love to see how he explains away all the Scripture that talks about the poor (and not just those sitting in the pew next to you).

Matt Miles, you beat Bart to the punch. James 1:27, for example. James did not state to look after widows and orphans who are in the church. Sorry, Mark, your broad claim does not stand with specific verses nor the theme of Scripture, let alone the Jesus charge to his followers (Matthew 25).

Read 'Rich Christians In An Age Of Hunger' by Ron Sider. And listen to 'The Cave' by Mumford And Sons, which references that verse in James. "I can see widows and orphans through my tears. I know my call despite my faults and despite my growing fears."

Please note that Dever writes "But the CHURCH isn't called to solve social ills." He does NOT say "Christians aren't called to solve social ills." History is replete with examples of churches and denominations who tried to solve social ills and lost the gospel along the way.

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

*the church isn't called to solve social ills.*

I don't think the Church is called to ignore them either. Honestly, I believe God wants us to focus less on the category of the ill and more on the individuals caught up in the ill. When we see the faces of AIDS, poverty, homelessness, addiction, etc., then we treat the "least of these" the way Christ demands.

"Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic."
— Pope Benedict XVI

In this context I agree with Dever. He isn't saying Christians ought not to solve social ills--but often if it becomes our focus we lose sight of the cross. To much of our social gospel talk (as well as the former moral majority talk) is also becoming politicized.

Dever's comment also embraces the idea that all of humanity has the responsibility to serve their neighbor. To much of the current debate lays the burden for resolving everything from AIDS to poverty on the backs of the "church". This seems a bit ego-maniacal.
The church would do well to take care of its own, and evangelize the lost. All evangelism is social action as it has the potential to create a surrendered Jesus-follower who will also become a civic servant.

it is appropriate for Christians to care for the poor outside the church

Surely he must mean the church as an institution here, and that's part of the problem with his perspective, I think. Christians who care for the poor in any setting are surely acting as agents of the kingdom of God and thus being church as Christ intended it, are they not?

btw...Chris
Part of the problem with this type of debate is applying a passage of prophecy from Isaiah about Jesus to us Christians. This prophecy was Jesus' job description, not mine. I'm still struggling with one he gave you and me, much less shouldered with healing the blind and releasing the oppressed... Matt. 28
“I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. 19 Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 20 Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Matthew 25:31-46 indicates how we deal with the poor will be a basis for judgment. And didn't he say to teach people to OBEY all that he commanded? Also, Jesus healed the sick etc. without question. He didn't pass out tracts. Aren't we to imitate him as his body?

"For I was hungry, while you had all you needed. I was thirsty, but you drank bottled water. I was a stranger, and you wanted me deported. I needed clothes, but you needed more clothes. I was sick, and you pointed out the behaviors that led to my sickness. I was in prison, and you said I was getting what I deserved." Matthew 25: 41-43 (RESV -- Richard E. Stearns Version, from "The Hole in Our Gospel.")

I made this point earlier, but Stearns say we are commanded to serve the poor, not necessarily to change the world. Only God can do that. We're to be obedient.

Mark Dever's comments remind me of the Left Behind series and its supporting cast of end-times literature. Shaky theology, even worse social commentary.

I'm sure other readers are better equipped to address the relevant theological points, so I won't, except to recommend Neither Poverty Nor Riches, part of a series on Biblical Theology edited by D.A. Carson.

Simply put, in a world where the majority of Christians live in the global South and earn a tiny fraction of the average American, it is impossible to care for our brothers and sisters in Christ without addressing systemic economic, political, social, and environmental issues.

We'd be fools to ignore the impact of our economic policies on Christians in developing countries. Consider Haiti, where trade liberalization destroyed indigenous agricultural production. Examine US food aid policies, which spend enormous amounts of money shipping American-grown food to developing countries instead of buying locally and supporting true economic development.

How is the Church supposed to respond to situations like the military persecution of the Church in El Salvador in the 1980's? Should we have remained silent about the billions of dollars in aid provided by the US to the military government?

The Global Church isn't made up of a core of well-to-do Americans and a fringe of starving Africans who just need a little hand-out. We just happen to have been blessed with living in a country that is at the height of its global power and exercises incredible influence over the lives of everyone on this planet.

Reverse the situation. Say you were living in Haiti in the 90's, or El Salvador under the junta, or South Africa under apartheid. What would your psalms and prayers look like? What would you ask of your American brothers and sisters? What would you ask of the Body of Christ?

Would you just ask for a food parcel? Or would you also ask for something that would bring long-term, systemic change? Would you ask for deliverance from your enemies, for the opportunity to make a living for yourself from your own soil without your future being decided by Congressman trying to channel enough subsidies to his district to get reelected?

Chris Blackstone hit the nail on the head, y'all.

He's just distinguishing between believers and the church.

No need to make it more complicated than that.

Why do we get so excited when we have an opportunity to publicly disagree with a brother?

In one sense, he's correct- the Church isn't called to solve social issues. It's called to be a sign and foretaste of the Kingdom. As we preach and live out the Good News, social ills get fixed because we are demonstrating what the Gospel does, what Jesus is about and where it al ultimately is going.
It may sound like semantics, but I think it's an important distinction.
Probably not the disctinction Dever was making, but still... :)

Captcha: some new (and after failing once) herd hack

There is no distinction between 'believers' and 'the Church'. The Church are the community of Christ-followers. We are the body of Christ. The 'institution' of the church is the man-made organization (and its denominations) that can be politicized. Bart believes this is what commenter John was saying and the Wang agrees with him.

"Therefor, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers." - Gal. 6:10
I come from a different perspective- "the poor." I've been a Christian for over 20 years, involved in several evangelical churces/denominations. I haven't been able to read the full article, so will pass on authoritatively critiquing his statement. But the comments in addition to the post illustrate how badly we frame the debate. It's not "Christian poor vs non," or separating "institutional church" from "Christians" or even "para-Church" and arguing over which entity should be responsible for what. It's about Christians who comprise the Church, gathered in churches and occasionally organizing para-churches, living the life of Christ in the world. My experience says we're really bad at a whole-picture perspective.

Yikes! And he's a pastor in DC?!?

I agree the church isn't called to solve social ills. Take health care. The church can't fix our health care system. Christians cannot fix our health care system.

Fixing those things is the role of the government. Government is a gift from God through which we do those things that we cannot do alone.

The role of the church and Christians in general is to drive government to change our systems so that, for example, all people have access to health care.

What happens far too often instead is that the church and Christians oppose these changes for various reasons.

It says in Leadership Journal that we can watch the video on this blog. Where can I find the video clips?

Mark is an amazing leader and pastor in many ways, but it is really sad that he misses the heart of God so greatly on this matter. His theology is very warped here. His overspirititualization of the kingdom reeks of gnosticism. May God grant him repentence in this area so he can preach the whole gospel.

In order to organize my thoughts on this quote, I realized I needed to ask this question: what is the purpose of the church?

My answer is the purpose of the church is to disciple. Now this also includes other actions, like preaching the Gospel among other issues, but if we state that the purpose of the church is to disciple, that does not necessarily include solving "social ills". Of course, as followers of Christ, we need to take it upon ourselves to aid those in need, whether it be spiritual or physical need, but that is not what the church, as a collective body, is called to do.

If we say that the church's duty is to solve "social ills", well that just creates a whole world of separate problems, such as deciding what ills are most important, how the church is to solve it, etc. If the church is made into an organization whose focus is generally on the ills of the world, then it becomes a general do-good organization, which we already have thousands of (many of them secular, reminding us that it is not necessary to be a believer in order to make good things happen).

The church is no longer the church if its focus is no longer on discipling people, however, as humans, we should still, as individuals, be working toward the general betterment of mankind.