To Mark: I would recommend going through local or regional ministerial organizations. In Boston, a group called “Vision New England” brings evangelical ministers and churches into contact with each other. Before we work with other churches we need to know them and enjoy fellowship with them. National organizations like the NAE may also have ways of helping in the coordination of mercy work; I couldn’t say for sure.

I have two questions. One is: who are the “us” and “them” in “us and them” when it comes to poor relief? If “us” means those with a Christian profession, we’d better get cracking, because the majority of American poor profess Christianity (almost certainly a greater majority of the poor do than of the population as a whole). The shape of relief must certainly be appropriate: the liberal fallacy has been to legislate and (forcibly) donate, without personal involvement and life transformation. But the mandate to care for the poor *is* unqualified. The question is only one of means. A drug abuser does not need cash; he needs rehabilitation and guidance in putting life together again. And of course poor relief starts in the family. But it by no means ends there.

I hope that the heritage of Christendom, with its necessarily “expansive” view of the church’s witness and work, will make an impact on our view of mercy, in which middle-class Americans tend to think “contractively” (as we do in all matters in which our money is threatened). Our model is not George Bush (Marvin Olasky I have more respect for, esp. because he’s a Brookline-bred Red Sox fan). The church’s true calling is Christ-like ministry, in word and in deed. Without the latter the former will be literally incredible in this society.

To Mark: I would recommend going through local or regional ministerial organizations. In Boston, a group called “Vision New England” brings evangelical ministers and churches into contact with each other. Before we work with other churches we need to know them and enjoy fellowship with them. National organizations like the NAE may also have ways of helping in the coordination of mercy work; I couldn’t say for sure.

I have two questions. One is: who are the “us” and “them” in “us and them” when it comes to poor relief? If “us” means those with a Christian profession, we’d better get cracking, because the majority of American poor profess Christianity (almost certainly a greater majority of the poor do than of the population as a whole). The shape of relief must certainly be appropriate: the liberal fallacy has been to legislate and (forcibly) donate, without personal involvement and life transformation. But the mandate to care for the poor *is* unqualified. The question is only one of means. A drug abuser does not need cash; he needs rehabilitation and guidance in putting life together again.

I hope that the heritage of Christendom, with its necessarily “expansive” view of the church’s witness and work, will make an impact on our view of mercy, in which middle-class Americans tend to think “contractively” (as they do in all matters where their money is threatened). The church’s true calling is Christ-like ministry, in word and in deed. Without the latter the former will be literally incredible in this society.

Any suggestions besides calling around to inner-city churches? I don’t think there is a single Reformed church within the city limits.

I suspect it was only when the church left its true calling and instead became a social club that they decided it would be a good ministry to feed the poor.