English
Korean
Spanish
“Would you like to donate two dollars to the local Rehab Center?”¨”Can I add a children’s book to your order to be donated to the hospital?”¨”Would you be interested in donating a dollar to the animal shelter?”
These are but a few of the holiday donation requests I have received over the past couple of weeks. Whether I am buying a sandwich, a book or a toy for my pet, I find myself showered by requests to support a local organization. And while I believe that some of these requests are warranted, and while I believe that some of these organizations are good, and while I believe that donating to some of these organizations is a worthy cause, I also believe that followers of Jesus ought to be prudent in how they give to organizations that don’t explicitly promote the gospel.
This is to say that, while it is good to give to rehab centers, hospitals, and even animal shelters, such donations should not be confused as explicitly participating in the gospel.
This is because Christianity isn’t essentially about doing good things; it’s about advancing the name of Jesus. Organizations like rehab centers and hospitals can prolong the quality of physical life, but only Jesus can provide everlasting life. Both are good, but one is better. Much better. And this is the real message of Christmas.
Unfortunately, this is a concept that is often muddled. And, ironically, it’s most often muddled during the Christmas season.
Some weeks ago I read the following comment, which in my estimation reveals the confusion of the relationship between good works and the gospel: “Compassion for the poor is uniquely tied to the gospel & unalterably linked to the Great Commission.”
At first glance this statement seems impressively theological, but upon further investigation it attempts to recalibrate the gospel into something other than what it is. Jesus warns of such efforts in his parable of unleavened bread: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened” (Matthew 13:33).
In this, the gospel is the pure “three pecks of flour” recipe to which we should not add “leaven.” In Scripture “leaven” is always bad, and it causes the finished product to turn out much differently than intended.
Jesus’ message is that we ought to be careful to not add extra ingredients to the gospel’s recipe. And confusing the doing of good things as the gospel is, without question, adding extra ingredients.
This of course isn’t to say that compassion for the poor isn’t “tied” or “linked” to the gospel. It is. Nor is it to say that compassion for the poor is an evil ingredient. It isn’t. But to go as far as to say that it is “uniquely tied” and “unalterablylinked” might be altering the recipe a little bit.
Digging wells for a poor village in Africa, for example, isn’t, in and of itself, the gospel. It’s a wonderful thing to do, especially if it is being done because of one’s redemption in Christ, but it isn’t the gospel. The gospel can be preached without the digging of wells. Digging wells to create a segue to preach the gospel is good, but if the gospel isn’t preached then one has essentially only done a good thing that is no better than what a non-Christian organization can do. Many organizations participate in this compassionate effort for the poor without any gospel motivation. In this, physical life is sustained, but the village remains spiritually dead.
When we replace the backing of organizations that don’t support the explicit gospel message for the backing of organizations that do, we confuse the gospel with doing good things, which isn’t the gospel. Giving to good organizations is a good thing, but participating in organizations that advance the gospel is better. Christians should do both, but we should also know that our resources go further when we explicitly support the gospel. And if we have to choose one, we should choose the one that shares the gospel with its recipients.
This is because it’s not necessarily true that compassion for the poor “is uniquely tied and unalterably linked to the gospel” so much as that it can be “tied to a unique and unalterable gospel.” This idea preserves the gospel’s unique ingredients without altering its recipe. It places the power of the gospel in Christ, not our actions, and shows that it’s the gospel that has the power to save, not our ability to do good things for the less fortunate.
As Matt Chandler writes:
“If we confuse the gospel with response to the gospel, we will drift from what keeps the gospel on the ground, what makes it clear and personal, and the next thing you know, we will be doing a bunch of different things that actually obscure the gospel, not reveal it. At the end of the day, our hope is not that all the poor on earth will be fed. That’s simply not going to happen. I’m not saying we shouldn’t feed and rescue the poor; I’m saying that salvation isn’t having a full belly or a college education or whatever. Making people comfortable on earth before an eternity in hell is wasteful (83).”
