David Anguish
Previously, we raised the concern that we can get so caught up in responding to obvious physical needs that we never get around to confronting people with their eternal needs. At the same time, we noticed that those who would make a sharp distinction between the spiritual and physical as legitimate objects of concern for ministry must explain why their course is justified in light of both human experience and Jesus' example.
Peter's description of Jesus as one who "went about doing good" (Acts 10:38, NASB) is the touchstone for any consideration of what is right in ministry. If Jesus were walking the earth today, would he stop by the medical clinics to see what assistance he could render? Would he go to a counselor's office to assist people wrestling with addictions and psychological disorders? Would he turn up at a soup kitchen or a food bank? Would he endorse relief efforts to feed the starving in third world countries? Based on his example, we would not be surprised to see him doing all of these things and others like them. We believe that he would be the most complete embodiment of Paul's exhortation to "do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of faith" (Galatians 6:10).
Note the prominence of the word "good" in these passages. It is important for us to remember that Jesus did what he did because it was right. The early church did the same. The very essence of servanthood demands that we do the right thing first and foremost because it is the right thing, the very thing which God would do.
We stress this because it is too easy to subscribe to a different form of the spiritual-physical dichotomy we have already mentioned. There are many disciples who reject the view of those who contend that it is wrong to use "spiritual" resources to respond to physical needs. We believe that God's word authorizes us to help those who are poor and ill (whether physical or psychological), that caring for "widows and orphans" (James 1:27) may be properly accomplished as a collective effort as well as by an individual. But sometimes, as such needs are actively met, there appears in our language evidence that a restriction has been made which we do not find in the example of Jesus. That restriction has to do with the motive for service. We help, but sometimes leave the impression that our main reason for doing so is not because it's right, but because it's the best way to get to something else.
Again, it's a question of balance, and a delicate question at that. Both chapters 4 and 9 in John's gospel would read very differently had Jesus not moved the conversation beyond water and blindness to eternal concerns. The opportunities were there to move to deeper things, and Jesus, the master teacher, took advantage of those opportunities. But there is no hint that he forced the issue in either case, nor in others like them. Just as there were times when he could do only a few miracles because of the attitudes of the people he encountered (Mark 6:5), so there were occasions when the best he could do was heal an illness and leave the matter there (Luke 17:11-19 comes to mind). If he, who knew what was in a man (John 2:25), went ahead and did the good thing even when he knew it would not lead to deeper discussions, surely we can understand that it is proper for us to do good just because it is right to do so.
Wherever there is good which needs to be done, God's people ought to be first in line to do it. We do this, not so that we can get to do something else (though we should be ready to seize the opportunities which do come), but because it is the right thing to do. To act this way is to follow Jesus.