The Remedy for Our Great Evil

Becoming a Church for the Poor

In two of my previous essays, I summarized the opinions of two nineteenth-century Presbyterian theologians who strongly criticized their own tradition for its failure to reach the poor.

The first of these theologians, and the better-known of the two, was Charles Hodge, who is widely regarded as one of the grandfathers of American Presbyterianism. In his essay “Preaching the Gospel to the Poor,” Hodge condemned the Presbyterian tradition for its evil system that excluded the poor from its midst. He called this a “great evil” that is most apparent among the urban poor in our cities.^[1]

The second theologian was Joshua McIlvaine, a pastor and lecturer in language studies. Writing seven years before Hodge in the same theological journal, McIlvaine warned that the Presbyterian neglect of the poor is such a significant evil that if it were not soon remedied, Presbyterians would find Jesus had abandoned them.^[2]

These are strong words from two of our Presbyterian and Reformed ancestors. Were they right? If so, did we pay attention? Or, as McIlvaine cautioned at the end of his essay, has the “chronic growth” of this evil manifested in such a way that “our Presbyterian branch of the church” is “deserted by the poor”?

If this is the case, we can only further agree with McIlvaine that it is “ to be feared” we could soon find ourselves “deserted by the Lord.”^[3]

Yet neither Hodge nor McIlvaine lost hope that their beloved Presbyterian church could become a church for the poor, nor should we. Although the remedy for our evil can only come through great repentance, prayer, and intentional efforts, we are not alone in this work. If we turn to Christ our Head through the testimony of Scripture and our Reformed tradition, we will find the courage and motivation to sustain us for this task.

The historic witness of Hodge and McIlvaine is a fitting place to begin the work. In the rest of this essay, I will summarize four of their solutions for the Reformed and Presbyterian to become a church for the poor. The application of these principles will be discussed in a later essay.

Study Our Ministry to the Poor

McIlvaine believed the first task was an earnest statistical study of how effectively the Presbyterian churches care for the poor. Such an analysis would involve examining each congregation, presbytery, and the entire denomination. This study should determine the amount of money “raised and expended” on the poor. While this study faces challenges (McIlvaine noted that it would not account for private charity among members), it would nonetheless “make known to the church what her actual relation to the poor is.”

McIlvaine’s suggestion, if implemented, would be a humbling one. How distant are our churches and presbyteries from the poor in their midst? To what extent is our tradition failing in its fundamental calling to follow Jesus in his love for the poor and marginalized?

I share McIlvaine’s fear regarding what such a study might reveal about our beloved tradition: our gospel “is generally confined to those who are able to pay for it; our membership is composed almost exclusively of those who are well to do in the world.”^[4] As my friend Rome says, this is a gospel of upward mobility. It primarily attracts the middle and upper classes because it is designed for them; it does not address the concerns of the poor and oppressed in our society.

Yet this gospel is very different from the one Jesus preached. Our own tradition, beginning with Calvin and beyond, attests that Jesus sought his followers first among those in poverty who were despised by the world. As Abraham Kuyper readily acknowledged, “the main feature that stands out is that [Jesus] purposely, by preference and by virtue of his anointment and calling, turns in the first place to the poor and seeks the subjects for his kingdom mainly among them.”^[5]This preference for the poor is “the hallmark of the Messiah.”^[6]

As imperfect as this first step may be, it would serve to “keep the relation of the church to the poor before the minds of the people of God… It could hardly fail to cherish a wholesome consciousness of our deficiencies and to stimulate our efforts in this department of our work, which… is one of the three great objects for which the church exists in the world.”^[7]

Create Collective Funds for Ministry Among the Poor

Hodge believed that the root of the “evil” in “our system” is found in our failure to uphold two Scriptural principles in our Presbyterian system.

The first principle is that every minister “is entitled to an adequate support” for their labor. This principle is so obvious that it “does not admit of dispute,” as it is taught by our Lord in Luke 10:7 and is supported in many other passages in Scripture (i.e., 1 Corinthians 9:14, 1 Timothy 5:18). It is a principle “of universal application, in all departments of life, and among all classes of men,” including “poor ministers.”^[8] This principle is so clear that “there is no need to argue this question,” for “the Apostle has done [it] for us.”

Hodge argued that there is a second principle our Presbyterian churches fail to uphold: “that it is the duty of the church, as a whole, to sustain those of its members whom God calls to preach the gospel.” It is not the responsibility of each congregation alone to care for its pastor; this duty falls on the entire denomination.

This principle can be derived from several threads found in Scripture. Members have an obligation to uphold the gospel beyond our local congregations, as the church is one body. Ministers are not ordained to a single congregation but to the entire denomination. Hodge wrote extensively about these principles in his essay.

However, there are also practical reasons to uphold this principle. In any tradition where the preacher relies on the support of those he preaches to, it will be the case that very few ministers will opt to live among the poor.

In our collective failure to uphold this second principle, “we fail in adequately reaching the poor. We fail to a far greater degree than those churches which boldly recognize the opposite… We cannot deny the fact that in our cities and larger towns the poor are not in our churches.”^[9]

For Hodge and McIlvaine, the obvious solution to this problem is that there be greater efforts in our denominations and presbyteries to take up collective funds to support ministers in poorer communities. If such funds were “recommended to the people by our ecclesial bodies, and urged upon them from the pulpits; if adequate pains were taken to convince them that it is the only way… we can reach them with the gospel of Christ… it is believed that there are large numbers in our congregations [who would provide] the necessary means.”^[10]

Adapt the Church to the Needs of the Poor

McIlvaine was very critical of how Presbyterian ministry had exclusively tailored itself to the tastes of the middle and upper classes. Our preaching and ministry emphasis are unintelligible and inapplicable to the poor, who know within minutes of arrival that our churches are not for them.

If the poor are to find a home in our churches, we “should endeavor to adapt the preaching of the gospel, the worship of the sanctuary, and services of all social meetings, in a special manner, to the capacities” of the poor. McIlvaine did not commend that we somehow lower the standards of our ministry; the poor are not dumb, nor should they be condescended to. What McIlvaine called for was “something more truly elevated, and vastly harder of attainment, as every minister of the gospel, who has ever tried it, well knows.”

Presbyterian preaching relies too much on fanciful arguments, “abstract and metaphysical disquisitions,” and the mere development of doctrinal ideas. Such ministry lacks heart; rarely is it applied to the real spiritual and physical needs of real people, certainly not those of the poor. Preaching “that is not adapted to reach and save the poor and ignorant cannot be saving to the rich and educated.”

When our ministries adapt to the “tastes of the educated and cultivated,” they are of little interest to the poor; they become “stiff and formal, and cold and dead.” Soon, such lifeless ministries will be deserted by those “whose tastes they are intended to please.”^[11] The presence of the poor strengthens the heart of the church.

According to Calvin, the presence of the poor also testifies to the truthfulness of the gospel:

But the Church of Christ is composed of poor men, and nothing could be farther removed from dazzling or imposing ornament. Hence many are led to despise the Gospel, because it is not embraced by many persons of eminent station and exalted rank. How perverse and unjust that opinion is, Christ shows from the very nature of the Gospel, since it was designed only for the poor and despised.^[12]

What, then, do we testify to in their absence?

Restore the Diaconate

I have already written at length on the prominence of the diaconate in the Reformed tradition, so I will not repeat myself here.

However, it is worth noting McIlvaine’s unique contribution to the recovery of this office in our churches. He observed that the importance of the diaconate has been lost in most traditions, except for Presbyterianism. Even among Presbyterians, however, deacons hold “little significance or influence.” The work of the diaconate is most often absorbed by elders, which minimizes ministry to the poor and alienates them from our churches.

If “the evil we deplore” is to be removed from our churches, the diaconate “must be restored to its true position, power, and influence in all our congregations.” Deacons must assume the responsibility of securing funds for the poor as well as inspiring passion within congregations for this ministry.

In this calling, deacons show us how to follow Christ, who “first ministered to the poor the supply of their bodily necessities, which they felt most keenly, and thus he brought them into that relation to himself in which their hearts were opened to receive at his hands the supply of their spiritual wants.” We must impose no limits on our mercy; only then will we “succeed in reaching the poor with our gospel, and in drawing them under the influences of the church.”^[13]

Father, we close by asking that you would move our hearts to cry out as our ancestors did:

Let our churches attract the poor as Jesus did, and then offer Christ to them, as he offered himself; and they will receive him unto their salvation Yes, let the poor come in ever greater and greater numbers. God be merciful to them in their temporal destitution and sorrows!^[14]

---

^[1] Charles Hodge, Preaching the Gospel to the Poor, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, Vol. 43, No. 1 (1871), 83-95.

^[2] Joshua Hall McIlvaine, The Relation of the Church to the Poor, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1864), 601-634.

^[3] McIlvaine, 634.

^[4] McIlvaine, 624.

^[5] Abraham Kuyper, Christ, and the Needy, 661. https://www.marketsandmorality.com/index.php/mandm/article/viewFile/74/70

^[6] Kuyper, 663.

^[7] McIlvaine, 624. For the purpose of the church and its care for the poor, see https://benhein.substack.com/p/the-danger-of-presbyterian-apostasy.

^[8] Note the foundation for a Reformed view of fair wages for the lower and working classes.

^[9] Hodge, 86-93.

^[10] McIlvaine, 634.

^[11] McIlvaine, 624-626.

^[12] John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 11:5 and Luke 7:22.

^[13] McIlvaine, 626-628.

^[14] McIlvaine, 630.