Why evangelism and social engagement go together

John Stott advocated “double listening” – that is, listening to the Word of God (to believe and obey it), and listening to the world around us (to understand and engage with it). He also insisted that evangelism and social engagement are both integral parts of the church’s holistic mission – like two blades of a pair of scissors or two wings of a bird.

The trouble is that some churches are good at one or the other but not both. Some preach and teach the Word, but avoid too much involvement in social issues. Others invest heavily in addressing the needs they see in the world around them, but are not known for evangelism or Biblical preaching.

Why do we so easily polarise in either direction, when the gospel itself surely summons and mandates us to do both?

Biblical preaching / involvement in social issues

On the one hand, it is said (and sadly true) that churches which become active in social projects of various sorts can easily lose their passion for evangelism (if they had any) and slide into failing to preach the gospel.

But that is not holistic mission and such churches need the rebuke and correction of the Holy Spirit and His Word.

But on the other hand, there are churches also, whole denominations sometimes, well known for evangelistic zeal, but lacking any apparent concern or action in relation to issues of deprivation and injustice in their own environment or globally.

But doesn’t the book of Acts show that the early church prioritised the preaching of the Word over social issues, when a conflict between them surfaced in chapter six? That’s the story of the dispute between widows of different language groups and how the Apostles responded to it. You hear that argument quite often: the church’s priority is the ministry of the Word and it should not be distracted by material needs – check Acts 6. But that is a misunderstanding of Luke’s intention in Acts 6, which I think needs to be corrected. Let's look at the context.

Church growth by word and works

Luke has already shown twice that the early community of Christ-followers has been characterised both by fearless preaching by the Apostles of the good news about the crucified and risen Jesus, and by a very Scriptural commitment of all the believers to generous care for the needy.

When Luke says that “there were no needy persons among them” (Acts 4v34), he is quoting (intentionally, I think) the Greek version of Deuteronomy 15v4. And Luke emphasises that the church was growing exponentially in the wake of both those characteristics – evangelism and costly social compassion (Acts 2v42-47; 4v32-35).

Then come the threats to this doubly embodied gospel witness. First, there is the devastating impact of intentional lying and deceit within the community in relation to the financing of their social compassion, lying in fact to God’s Holy Spirit (5v1-11). This was dramatically confronted by the Apostle Peter to show how seriously God treated the matter. And still the church goes on growing (5v14).

Then comes the threat from the authorities, including imprisonment and flogging, which totally fails to stop the Apostles “teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah” (5v17-42).

The Word goes forth; the church grows even more.

And then in chapter six comes another threat to the social harmony of the community, which Luke has so carefully described twice as the life of people transformed by the gospel and filled with the Holy Spirit. The very acts of compassion that were so characteristic and attractive (caring for widows), have become a source of division with language favouritism and injustice doing their ugly work. This is another serious threat to the church’s demonstration of the gospel’s unifying power and social impact.

So, what is the apostles’ response this time?

Differing valid ministries

Unfortunately, the NIV does not really help us here. This is how they translate the Apostles’ words in Acts 6v2: “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word in order to wait on tables.” Now that immediately sounds to English readers like a negative comparison. Obviously, being a Bible preacher is more important than being a waiter! (Well, obvious to some, but not really a Biblical understanding of work – but that’s another matter!).

What the translation obscures is the fact that the Greek uses the same root three times:

• in v. 1, the daily diakonia (translated “distribution of food” as an assumption, but simply means “ministry” – it may have involved various forms of material assistance);
• in v. 2, diakonein “to minister/serve at tables”;
• in v. 4, diakonia (ministry of the Word).

In other words, the whole passage is about diakonia – ministry, in two distinct forms: one the ministry of caring for widows, the other the ministry of preaching and teaching the Word. Both are called ministries in the text.

John Stott puts it like this:

"It is essential to note that both distributing food and teaching the Word were referred to as ministry (diakonia). Indeed, both were Christian ministry, could be full-time Christian ministry, and required Spirit-filled people to perform them. The only difference between them was that one was pastoral ministry, and the other social. It was simply that Christ had called the Twelve to the ministry of the word and the Seven to the ministry of tables." ¹

So, we need to understand carefully what the Apostles were saying. They were quite rightly concerned to sustain and protect their own Christ-given ministry – the preaching of the Word; they were not prioritising that as the only or major ministry (or mission) for the rest of the whole church.

“It would not be right for us…” they say (italics added). But it will certainly be right for others – not to “neglect the word,” of course, but certainly to minister at “tables” – i.e. at the place of practical care and generosity. That was a ministry somebody had to do!

Differing valid priorities

The Apostles knew the missional priority that Christ had given to them as authorised Apostles, specifically called and sent to bear witness in words and signs to the crucified, risen, ascended and reigning Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and Christ. They were not telling the church as a whole that caring for the widows in practical and impartial provision was of secondary or lesser importance, or even worse (as is sometimes alleged), that it was a “distraction” from the “real” work of mission.

On the contrary, precisely because that specific diakonia was an integral and vital part of the visible, gospel-embodying, gospel-commending witness of the new community, it must be done and it must be done well with gospel-required impartiality.

And for that reason, it must become the priority for those who would be properly appointed and commissioned to carry it out. (Notice how their “ordination” in Acts 6v6 is the same as for the “missionaries” in Acts 13v3).

The Apostles certainly had their mission already, direct from the risen Christ, and they were determined to stay focused on it. But the Seven also now had their mission, as part of the overall mission of the church as a whole.

So, it seems to me that when Luke concludes this episode by pointing to the Word of God spreading and the disciples increasing in number rapidly (6v7), he is not implying that this growth of the church was because the ministry of the Word (evangelism) was prioritised over social care (as some argue), but rather that both key ministries were effectively maintained by wise and godly decisions. They made sure that both were prioritised by those called, appointed and Spirit-filled for each ministry, so that the witness of the whole church, in proclamation and demonstration of the gospel, continued to bear abundant fruit.

And if the objection is raised that Acts 6 refers only to the community of Christian believers, not to social concern and engagement in wider society, it is clear from the earliest records of the church that Christians were notorious for extending their practical compassion to the neediest victims in the pagan Roman world. That was something that was a significant factor in the growth of the church in the empire.

Gospel-centred holistic mission

In the church today, then, gospel-centred holistic mission should mean that any local church community ought to be thinking strategically and comprehensively about the variety of ways in which the gospel can be proclaimed and embodied, in their own neighbourhood, in their nation, and in their commitment to God’s mission to the ends of the earth.

They should ask: Are we ensuring that the gospel of God is central both to our verbal witness in the preaching and evangelism of the church, and also central to our outreach in acts of love, compassion, service and justice in the community?

Why do we keep arguing about prioritising, dichotomising and taxonomising – creating tensions that are not there in the Bible itself?

After all, the Great Commission is very clear. Jesus did not say, “make disciples…. teaching them to obey what you decide has priority among all that I commanded you…” No, He simply said, “to obey all that I commanded you” (italics added), which is pretty comprehensive!

But remember – the Great Commission begins with Jesus’ statement that He is Lord of heaven and earth. And that – the Lordship of Christ – is at the heart of the gospel and the mainspring of mission.

The gospel of God is the integrating centre that holds everything else together. Whatever we do in mission, we do because there is good news – that Jesus of Nazareth, crucified and risen, is the world’s True King and only Saviour.

1. John Stott, The Contemporary Christian: An Urgent Plea for Double Listening (IVP, 1992), p. 141.