"I think that Christianity has two emphases. One is a social emphasis to impart the values of the kingdom of God in society - to relieve the sufferings of the poor, to stand up for the oppressed, to be a voice for those who have no voice. The other emphasis is to bring people into a personal, transforming relationship with Christ, where they feel the joy and the love of God in their lives. That they manifest what the fifth chapter of Galatians calls 'the fruit of the Spirit'. Fundamentalism has emphasized the latter, mainline churches have emphasized the former. We cannot neglect one for the other."
I can't say "amen" to that strongly enough. The social gospel folk treat Christ as an afterthought and the fundamentalists are focused on doctrinal fidelity. The pure and undefiled religion that James taught has balance: "To visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." Why does it have to be one or the other?
Notice in this video that Tony says that the primary responsibility for the poor lies not with government but with the church. But he also points out (scripturally) that governments will be judged harshly for not caring for the poor. I only wish the poster had taped the rest of his speech - it was just getting good!
