Defining Evangelicalism Down February 12, 2008
Posted by Paul Edwards in Evangelicals, Jim Wallis, Religious Left, Religious Right, Rick Warren.trackback
The Religious Left is successfully redefining what it means to be a conservative evangelical by misrepresenting what it means to be a conservative evangelical. In a recent conference call hosted by Faith in Public Life, one of the emerging voices of the Religious Left, Dr. Joel Hunter, said,
“There’s also a change in the voices that are defining what is conservative now, and what is evangelical. In the past couple of decades you’ve had some very loud voices on both sides – hard right, hard left – and when those were the only choices, then of course many evangelicals are going to go with the hard right because, well, that’s kind of where we mostly are. Now there are many more voices that are expanding the agenda, and so those people that have always had kind of a holistic approach, rather than just a one or two issue approach, are now feeling permission and given permission to be more nuanced and more sophisticated in their approach, rather than just going in a very bifurcated system. And so, what you’re hearing now is that the old voices that appointed themselves as the definers of what was evangelical or what was conservative are not holding sway with the majority of evangelicals anymore.”
By convincing America that conservative evangelicals are concerned only with two issues, stopping abortion and preserving traditional marriage, these new voices of evangelicalism are effectively making the case that conservative evangelicals ignore poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the environment. The history of evangelicalism tells a different story.
Evangelicals have set the standard throughout history for social action which continues into the present through numerous humanitarian relief organizations. The Association of Evangelical Relief and Development Organizations claims 64 such organizations as members, including World Vision, Compassion International, Samaritan’s Purse, and Mercy Ships.
One of the largest humanitarian relief organizations in the world is the Salvation Army. It defines its commitment to social services as “…an outward visible expression of the Army’s strong religious principles.” Those social services include disaster relief, services for the aging, AIDS education, medical facilities, and shelters for battered women. The Salvation Army impacts 30 million people a year in the United States alone. The founder of the Salvation Army, William Booth, was a Methodist minister. On its website the Salvation Army defines itself as an “evangelical group.”
To these readily recognizable evangelical organizations add the innumerable evangelical churches across America that in very quiet and unrecognized ways minister to the needs of the poor and suffering every day. In my own community a local evangelical church runs the oldest and largest homeless shelter in our county. Grace Gospel Fellowship in Pontiac, Michigan serves 127,000 meals a year, provides rehabilitation services and housing for drug addicts and single mothers, and creates jobs. It accomplishes its mission without one dime of government funding, and is “dedicated to recovery through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
The Religious Left’s appeal for the Religious Right to “broaden its agenda” to include poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the environment ignores the fact that conservative evangelicals have always had a strong commitment to these issues. So if conservative evangelicals are already leading the efforts to relieve poverty and disease, what’s behind the call to “broaden the agenda”? Another agenda altogether.
What’s really happening here is an attempt by the Left to define evangelicalism down by moving it away from its emphasis on the power of the gospel to change lives. The church’s ability to affect social and cultural change, bringing relief to the poor and suffering, is rooted first and foremost in its commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and what the gospel says about the condition of man in sin which results in the symptoms of poverty and disease.
The Religious Left invalidates the conservative evangelical commitment to humanitarian relief because we are achieving our ends in the name of Jesus Christ through the gospel, without the assistance of government funding. The fundamental tenant of modern liberalism is that a government program funded by redistributed wealth is the preferred method of humanitarian relief rather than what the church is accomplishing by faith through compassionate hearts.
The new voices of the Religious Left – Rick Warren, Joel Hunter, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, et al – are defining down what it means to be an evangelical by making the symptoms of man’s sin (poverty, disease, etc.) a priority rather than addressing the cause of those symptoms (sin) and the cure found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The argument for this reprioritizing is a convincing one, suggesting the new priorities for evangelicals ought to be determined by asking, “How would Jesus respond to (fill in your favorite social cause here)?” The implied answer is that Jesus would be more concerned about the treatment of the poor (especially illegal immigrants) and, at best, neutral on the questions of abortion and homosexual marriage because Jesus never spoke against abortion or homosexual marriage.
These new voices of evangelicalism wear the label “red letter Christians,” but they are in reality “white space Christians,” determining Jesus’ view of abortion and homosexual marriage by focusing on what he didn’t say rather than on what he did say. In Matthew 5 Jesus upholds the standard of the Mosaic Law, which is clear in its call for punishing anyone responsible for killing a child in the womb (Exodus 21:22-25). When Jesus wanted to illustrate true greatness, he set a child in the midst of the disciples and said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). In Matthew 19 Jesus clearly affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman by validating the story of Adam and Eve, holding it up as the standard for marriage. As for the question of how Jesus would respond to illegal immigrants, I’m pretty sure he would tell them to obey the law (Matthew 22:21).
The new voices of evangelicalism sound eerily similar to the old voices of the social gospel movement who moved their churches away from the priority of the gospel in the early 20th Century, focusing instead on positive thinking and welfare as a solution to social ills. The result was empty pews and even emptier hearts. I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, then I’ll get down on my knees and pray we don’t get fooled again (with apologies to Pete Townshend).
Why do you make it sound like World Vision and Compassion International is something that the evangelical right has claim too? Tony Campolo is a big advocate of Compassion International. The problem with being so “sin” focused is that it doesn’t show the lost that there is a heart motive for their ills. Show them love unabated and they will want what you have in Jesus. I have heard of cases where missionaries will bring aid to the needed “only” under the condition that they listen to the gospel message. This is wrong, I think people that focus on the “sin” message are twisting the good news of the gospel into something that Jesus did not originally intend it to be. When I read McLaren and Campolo, I get a compassionate message of help and hope for all of Gods children, I don’t hear that when I listen to religious right radio shows. A person of compassion would feel for the folks suffering in Iraq and would speak out against an administration that waged an unjust war; a person of compassion would speak out against tax cuts that unfairly favor the rich. A compassionate person would not marry themselves to a political party and realize that God has no political affiliation and being part of God means standing for truth and not making cover for lies of the party. The Religious Right is being exposed, with the help of McLaren, Campolo and such, a voice has been given to those evangelicals who might have thought it strange that it is implied that if you are a “real” Christian than you should vote republican. The echo chamber of Dobson, Bauer, Perkins and Robertson are no longer being followed as they once did. I thank God for that.
Welcome back!
Campolo and McClaren draw the crowd and get your approval because they have a message that doesn’t tell the whole truth. The WHOLE truth involves not only ministering to the physical and emotional diseases afflicting the world, but making a priority out of proclaiming the truth about hope beyond this life through Jesus Christ.
Jesus said, “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” If I cure a man’s AIDS but he still dies and goes to hell because I was too ashamed of the gospel that I thought it would alienate him from me, what have I really accomplished? He’s going to die of something some day. The priority is his SOUL (which lives forvever), not his body (which will die no matter how much humanitarian aid he receives).
It would be inaccurate to align The Salvation Army with an particular political agenda, either from the right or the left, as you appear to be doing here.
On a number of levels it is not correct:
Firstly, The Salvation Army is a global movement, so the particular North American perspective represented on this blog does not necessarily resonate with a broader worldview which eminates from such a global movement.
Also, Salvationists on a individual basis do not always share personal political preferences. This would equally apply to those in the US, or the UK where I’m writing from, or from any other of the 100 plus countries where The Salvation Army works. Although our faith will clearly have influence on our political opinions and certain issues, we are not in the business of lining up en masse behind one particular party.
Our first alligence is to Jesus.
Peace & blessings
Iggy,
“I have heard of cases where missionaries will bring aid to the needed “only” under the condition that they listen to the gospel message. This is wrong”
You throw this baseless claim out, and it was adds most of the emotion to your argument. I cannot believe some of the stuff I hear people say on this blog. The “church” runs congress, the supreme court of all things, and now this? These sound more like the rantings of someone who has listened to to much Green Day, rather than someone honestly engaging the issues. I did a google search and the only recent partially substatial claims that support this, is some Catholic nuns who allegedly denied food during the Tsunami relief.
“Campolo and McClaren draw the crowd and get your approval because they have a message that doesn’t tell the whole truth”
I don’t agree, I know it is easy to claim that they get an audiance because their message is easier for sinners to digest. However, I used to be on your side of the fence Paul, I used to be a hardline righty, until I maybe got too close to the fire, I suppose. I had my eyes opened to a lot of hypocrasy and blatant lies to protect a political party or it’s interests. This is from christians that I am supposed to trust. When I realized the outright deception of the many in the religious right, I decided to pick up books by McLaren and Campolo. What I found is an honest effort at truth and a heart felt desire to serve Jesus, and his children saved and unsaved. I am concerned for Campolo and company that they will suffer from what the religious right has and make their bed with a party and eventually get so ingrained that they have to lie to protect themselves.
I wonder when you refer to the “WHOLE” truth when folks like yourself will ever come to realize that after 2000 years since Jesus and many modifications to the Bible that your specific version of truth is more opinion than TRUTH with a capital T. Jesus was quite clear that we need to come to him as little children, little children are always asking questions wanting answers. They are not walking around with the idea that they are the only holders to truth. What I see from the christian right so much resembles what Jesus condemned in his day. The smug pharisees who walked around condemning everyone else. Humilty is so paramount in the message of Jesus, I personally think that Jesus would invite those who are theologically uncertain but have a heart to want to know before he invites a person with all the answers who points out the flaws in everyone else.
This is not a personal shot at you Paul as much as it is to the religious right, since you may consider yourself part of it is what I think of many of your comments on the radio. I know that was some waht circular but I hope the point is made
@Johnny Laird,
Nothing in my post suggests that the Salvation Army, or any of the other organizations cited, were taking political positions. The point I was making is that the religious left accuses evangelicals in general of not do anything about social issues. The Salvation Army, according to its website, is “an evangelical group” and clearly they are focused on humanitarian relief. I was not suggesting that the SA is either right or left, but rather an example of an evangelical organization who cares for the poor and needy, contrary to the claims of the left that evangelicals aren’t concerned about such issues.
@Iggy,
Jesus also said that he was sending us the Holy Spirit who would guide us “into ALL truth” (John 16). I don’t buy the postmodern notion that truth can’t be known for certain. You HAVE digested too much McClaren.
“Jesus also said that he was sending us the Holy Spirit who would guide us “into ALL truth” (John 16). I don’t buy the postmodern notion that truth can’t be known for certain. You HAVE digested too much McClaren.”
This is why we have over 1400 denominations of protestant Christianity all claiming the “Truth”. Like I said, I don’t think “certainty” will be one of Jesus’ criteria when separating the goats and sheep. I am sure you will not include the liberal mainline denominations but even if we take it down to the “fundamentalist” group of Christian, you have a huge difference in say the Reformed group from the Pentecostal group, even in the Pentecostal group you have oneness God view to Jesus only to the trinity God view. All claiming to read, “literally”, from the same scripture. All claiming they are right. Seems like a huge contradiction.
Colin, the example that I referred to I believe is in Brian McLaren’s book the secret Message of Jesus, I don’t own the book and it has been a while but I am almost certain that is where I found the story of the missionaries who will not give food unless something is done ie listen to a sermon or covert to Jesus…..
Iggy,
Certainty will MOST CERTAINLY be Jesus’ critera when separating the sheep from the goats. His words in Matthew 7 assures us that the only certainty that matters is the certainty that HE KNOWS US and has redeemed us.
Denominational and sectarian differences are not evidence that absolute truth doesn’t exist, just that it cannot be discovered outside of supernatural revelation (see Peter in Matthew 16).
You’re so focused on the trees you can’t see the forest. Truth IS there, but it belongs to God and he reveals it not to the “wise and prudent” but to “babes” (Luke 10:21) so that he might destroy the wisdom of the wise and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent (1 Corinthians 1:19).
It appears that Johnny Laird and Iggy came to the same conclusion about the article. It does appear that by listing the organizations and criticizing the left that it somehow points out that the organizations are right leaning. The question is, are these organizations enough? Yes, the evangelical community has large organizations to help the poor, but so do secular nonprofits, many of them. Another criticism of the evangelical left towards the right is its unfettered support of financial policies in this country that have made the rich richer and the poor poorer. A report was recently release stated that between 2003 and 2005, the increase in wealthy for the top 1% in this country was more than the total take home of the bottom 20%. Think about that, the increase added to their already huge salaries, more than the take him of the bottom 20%. Much of this is due to tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, it is destroying our country. We have seen already that the political right will do nothing to help the social causes when they had both chambers of congress and the white house. The social issues for the religious right will never change so long as the religious right keeps giving those Politian’s a pass and continues to support them. This is why folks like myself are having an open ear to folks like Campolo, Mclaren etc. I agree with Iggy, the religious right has been exposed, and their motives seem less than pure, young christians like myself will no longer blindly follow their leading.
BTW,
For the Colin’s out there here is the article about the report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/business/15rich.html
Pixelmaster,
But you young Christians will blindly follow the leading of the emerging liberal evangelical leadership?? Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Paul,
You make that statement as if my following the “emergent” crowd is something that I have done without thought. This issue has kept me up at night, thinking about my faith. When I see lies and deception coming from those whom I trusted, those whom claim to be “biblically” sound it brings one to want to give up on that faith. It is the Brian McLaren’s of the world who help keep that faith in Jesus going. They bring a fresh perspective on God, one that doesn’t have to claim that the Biblical story of Noah is absolutely true even though the same story of the epic of Gilgamesh was written long before, one that looks at scripture as authoritative but not perfect. Because if you claim perfect then what do you do with Leviticus, many churches avoid that text. What about the scripture in psalms “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock”. A Christian faith that is more about worshiping a God with all your heart and not requiring all the answers. Please understand, as Don has noticed, I struggle with my faith and consider it with fear and trembling. If I find folks like Campolo and McLaren enlightening it is not because I want to justify any state of “living for the world” and being a Christian. It is because the fundamentalist ground is very shacky when honest question are asked and honest answers demanded.
I know the argument about a fresh perspective of God, that God is unchanged. The fact is a simple look at history will show that human’s perception of God has changed many, many times.
Thanks for the comments Paul, I like to dialog with you on this blog.
Paul,
I’m impressed!
Pete was from ~ my generation ~. I saw him at SSHS in 1967, Nov 22. Those “long haired hippies” burned our gym stage floor with the legionary smashing of his guitar at the shows end. Enjoy. I still prefer the Charles E Fuller sound however.
http://www.thewho.net/whotabs/equipment/guitar/equip-smashed
Paul
BTW, in those days a Detroit suburban teen could go to the Birmingham Palladium (also named Pub) and see Bob Seger with the entertainment of Cokes and chips. Honest! A group called the “Plain Brown Wrapper” would open for him. How about Nugent, Clapton, or north of us, the “Guess Who”. We rocked in those days, now I trust in a different ROCK! I saw them all, and then I saw my sin, and a long fingered, lanky, machine gun styled preacher directed his finger and message at me and showed me the way out of my darkness into His glorious light.
I recall riding out to “TED’S” Drive In, at Woodward and Long Lake RD (I think), with brothers Townsend, Page, and Jagger, trying to pick up some “chicks”.~~~ Just kidding, but I seem to be very nostalgic lately. This was pre-Jesus. Now, I await a TRUMPET.
Iggy,
I guess that is the difference between us, that is I don’t use mankind as any kind or judge or arbiter or truth. Because there are many different denominations does not prove that truth is unknowable. Of course we are finite beings so we were created to enjoy an eternity of learning about, enjoying, and discovering a infinite being (God), so due to that we certaintly can have true knowledge as God reveals it to us, but we can never have exhaustive knowledge. Of course now we are in sin, so it makes the entire situation all the more complicated. “Oneness” pentecostals aren’t Christian because they have officials altered the doctrine of the Trinity to modalism and are therefore heretics, and most other Christians will agree with that. From my study of scriptures if Christianity would return to the doctrines and basics of the reformation we would be a lot better off. Not until the late 19th and 20th centuries when dispensationalism, the campbelites and all sorts of others began introducing bizarre brand new doctrines was there as much division as there is today. Before that Baptists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists and others were pretty similar in agreed doctrines, excepts for points like ecclesiology and the sacraments. McClaren is simply the post-modern expression of 20th century confusion where people go “Oh no, theres many different ways of looking at things, what are we gunna do! Let’s just be lazy and not sift through all this and throw our hands up and say there must not be truth since everyone isn’t currently running in agreement on everything!”. I mean the guys assertions are ridiculous! “Evangelicals should take a 5 year hiatus from discussing homosexuality and should spend the time evaluating through all the psychological and sociological data”? …….. “Hey Pastor I’m struggling with homosexuality…” “Sorry son, Mr. Mclaren said I can’t talk about that, come back in 5 years and I might have an uncertain answer”. McClaren isn’t keeping “faith in Jesus” alive, he is systematically destroying the faith once delivered to the Saints from the inside.
Pixelmaster,
And what does that article prove? And by the way, I already answered the whole “Leviticus” thing. I don’t understand why you are still running around acting as if that book of the Bible is something we ought to be ashamed of, you miss out on large parts of the Gospel if you ignore it. And concerning Psalms, I also already answered that issue with my discussion of ancient warfare. The author was simply expressing his disdain and anger at an oppressing power, and waiting for someone to attack and destroy them completely which would normally include that act. That isn’t an imperative placed upon people who read the Bible to wish that or to do that, thats not the main intention of the genre that the Psalms are written in. Yea, it’s not nice, just like it wasn’t nice for the 12 sons of Jacob to have that whole town circumcise themselves and then to kill them while they were all in pain. The Bible records real human tragedy and emotions from real history, unlike other ancient mythologies which always skewed stories to make the “heros” seem flawless.
“The fact is a simple look at history will show that human’s perception of God has changed many, many times.”
Again man is not the arbiter of truth. Besides this proves nothing, look at how man’s ideas and attitudes towards God changed from Genesis 1-3.
Pixelmaster … it seems to me that you would rather believe the emergent leaders than Jesus. Jesus definetly believed the Noah’ story. He definitely believed Jonoah’ story. So, I am of the opinion that Jesus’ words are most trustworthy than the words of someone who’s uncertain about everything and only certain that he is uncertain about everything
It is one thing to raise good questions about what more should be done about the environment and poverty. It is a completely a different thing to deny Jesus’ words.
I don’t doubt your honesty and the fact that you are open about your faith struggles. I would only say that for every honest doubt that you might have, someone has already answer it. God loves honest doubters, just look at John the Baptist, Thomas and others. He is ready to give you an honest answer to your honest doubt. But don’t take the coward and lazy way out by giving up your faith and replace it with this pseudo-faith that neither saves nor stands for anything.
God bless you!
1.It was well stated on a prominent newscast last week concerning the blogs that; ~~~ “they are equal opportunity bashers”.
2. I had the ~ “old boss” for years, and prefer the “new boss”.
… for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
3. those **** dispesationlists!
4. In the event any you feel obliged to mail a love offering my way for this fine advise…no need to, this is all free! Kinda like salvalation from a reformed position, you just get it given to you.
5. Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!
“I don’t doubt your honesty and the fact that you are open about your faith struggles. I would only say that for every honest doubt that you might have, someone has already answer it. God loves honest doubters, just look at John the Baptist, Thomas and others. He is ready to give you an honest answer to your honest doubt. But don’t take the coward and lazy way out by giving up your faith and replace it with this pseudo-faith that neither saves nor stands for anything. ”
Thanks Ben, those are very kind words.
I still love ya Pix.
Paul,
You said: “The new voices of the Religious Left – Rick Warren, Joel Hunter, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, et al – are defining down what it means to be an evangelical by making the symptoms of man’s sin (poverty, disease, etc.) a priority rather than addressing the cause of those symptoms (sin) and the cure found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Do you really believe that? Poverty and sin are the result of disease, and no one should expect help unless you are first allowed to blame them for their own misery? The real priority in reaching out to the destitute should be making sure they know you think a loving God is going to burn them alive for all eternity? Don’t you ever wake up and wonder how a good person could believe the monstrous things that you do?
Of course I really believe that treating the CAUSE of a disease is more effective than merely treating SYMPTOMS of the disease! Don’t YOU?
If I have a headache and its determined I have a brain tumor and I am prescribed Tylenol and it relieves the pain but I still die, how have I been helped?
There IS a connection between sin and disease, but this is not the same as saying that a person is sick because he has sinned. “Death passed upon all men for that all have sinned, ” the Bible says. When Adam disobeyed God and rebelled, he introduced the consequences of his sin on the entire human race. The ultimate reason people die is because of SIN. God remedied the sin problem when he sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to “become SIN for us” so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
I’m all for relieving pain and suffering, but that’s a sympton of the real problem: man’s need of a Savior so that he can live eternally.
You said: “Of course I really believe that treating the CAUSE of a disease is more effective than merely treating SYMPTOMS of the disease! Don’t YOU?”
If you believe that there is an invisible toxic substance called “sin” that results in the death of the soul, that’s one thing, but the cause of physical suffering and starvation are germs and lack of food. One is theoretical, no matter how much you may say you “know” that Jesus lives. The other is right here and now.
I can only give you the perspective of a member of the unwashed unworthy. I recognize that I’m not one of the elect, and that I therefore can’t understand these things. Even so, I can’t get past the sense that if you make people pay for your kindness by making them listen to the Amway/Jesus hard-sell, then your belief system is nothing more than another system of barter. If your motivation for reaching out to people is so that they can adopt your belief system, then your belief system is not worth having. If your beliefs make you fault people for doing good for the sake of doign good, then it seems like your system is morally bankrupt.
Skeptimal,
Did I say that relieving someone’s suffering was dependent on them first listening to “the Amway/Jesus hard-sell”? My point is that if we cure them physically and leave them spiritually bankrupt, when they die eventually they end up in hell for eternity, even though I’ve made them comfortable now.
I agree with you that we stand a better chance of getting our message heard if it is preceded by compassioniate care for physical suffering. What I’m arguing for is DON’T STOP THERE. Treat the cause of ultimate death (which is sin) with the only cure - the gospel of Jesus Christ: his substitionary death in the place of sinners.
Skeptimal,
I really appreciate the variety that you add to this blog. It seems there are many folks who backup what Paul says, then there is PixelMaster and myself who I would catagories as Left leaning theists and your atheistic view. Keep coming back, I certainly like what you add to this blog.
Skeptimal,
“If your motivation for reaching out to people is so that they can adopt your belief system, then your belief system is not worth having.”
Everyone does this, the problem is you have set up criteria to mark one group of worldviews of presuppositions as “beliefs” and the others are just “secular” or “objective” or “scientific”. If I approach someone and give them medicine, because I believe that the physical is all there is, and for no good reason I should meet all their needs for their physical well being with no strings attached… You cannot tell me anyone who theoritically does that is not hoping that their idealogies and way of life will spread through their actiions whether it happens in a more passive or active manner.
Gents
It is really much simpler than all this.
When we find a great deal, we tell those we come in contact with. We “share” our wealth of inside knowledge.
Jesus Christ is the best deal (so to speak) and most of us feel compelled to “share” this knowledge.
“He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ”
It just gets out!
The end in itself is the glory of God.
There are many means through which this can be achieved. Helping the poor is definitely one of them. God made humans in his image that’s why they have intrinsic moral value and any way to help is good.
But, let’s not forget that the most glorious truth and the way to help this world the most is by presenting the good news.
You can’t ignore Jesus’ words:
And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—”Rise, pick up your bed and go home.”
And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it,
they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had
given such authority to men.
Jesus made it clear that what this sick person needed most was a spiritual healing.
We should help the poor more and we should take initiative in environment issues; however, Jesus made it clear that we should not ignore the most crucial problem of our days: the heart.
All for His glory!