Evangelism and The Poor

Have we fallen into the same trap that the church falls into from time to time?  The trap?  Going about evangelization in a way that is not the most productive.

I wonder - and this is all theoretical, because I am not an evangelist of any great talent or even ambition - if we sometimes have fallen into the trap of the power:  that we need to seek conversions and advancements among those that are the trend setters of our society, the rich and powerful.  It makes sense in a way, of course:  would we not want the leaders of any society - artistic, business, political - to be examples of living the Christian life (we should wish that all are saved, of course)?

The difficulty is that this does not seem to produce the results we always would like.  At best we often seem to get people which may be Christian In Name Only (CINO) living lifestyles that can create significant issues for the cause of Christ;  at worst we get shallow conversions and very public rebuttals.

What did the apostles do?

They just preached.  They preached to everyone.  They did not specifically seek out the rich and powerful (although they certainly did not shy away when the opportunity presented itself!), but simply spoke the word of God.

Interestingly, I find Pope Francis' life and commentary on the seeking more ways to aid the poor useful at this point - not simply because it is a command of Christ (it is), but because this may represent the greatest missionary field that the church can significantly impact in the coming years.

Being active in these areas can give the church its arena of greatest impact.  Meeting basic needs is not necessarily an expensive task.  There is not necessarily a capital campaign that we would need to organize to begin. Meeting such needs is as simply as looking in our cabinets or going to a grocery store and seeing what we can buy and give.

By doing this we also (I think) subtly change our focus.  We are not seeking to convert for the influence that someone can bring; we are seeking to serve to make the love of Christ real.  I can't fully explain how that works - only that it seems different to me in a way that seems powerful.

The mission field is much larger as well.  The amount of influencers is small; the amount of the poor is large.  This is something that can be performed as close as a neighborhood away or as far as a continent away.

One more point of clarity:  the reason for doing this is (ultimately) to glorify God, to spread the word of His Kingdom.  This is the difference that we as the church can offer that no other organization can:  not just meeting temporal needs but meeting the needs of eternity as well.  Doing correctly, what a powerful witness this could be.

Where would we start?  How would we start?  These are things that I don't really know (although I probably should pay them more thought).  All I do know is that there is a great chance here for the church to do what it has done from time to time in past:  turn the world on the side of its head and at the moment when (as G.K. Chesterton said) so many believe that it has gone to the dogs, demonstrate that the God we worship and proclaim is still real and still active in the midst of His people.