Tim Keller on the “Single-End Model” of Evangelism and Social Action

In his book, Ministers of Mercy: The Call of the Jericho Road (P&R, 2000), Tim Keller addresses the relationship of mercy ministry (social action) with evangelism.  I am quoting from his chapter entitled “Word and Deed” (chapter 7).  All emphasis is original.

Some teach that evangelism has primacy over mercy, meaning that mercy is a means to the end of evangelism.  That is, we minister to people in deed as a way of bringing them to Christ.  We conduct a social relief program simply to get the names for our evangelism visitation team to approach.  But deed ministry, like grace itself, is unmerited favor.  Luke 6:35 and context warn us not to lend or to do good so as to expect anything in return.  God sends down the rain on the just and the unjust, the grateful and the wicked (Matt. 5:45).  First John 3:17 tells us that the motivation of any ministry is love.  If we see a need, we meet it, if we can.  This put evangelism and mercy on an equal footing motivationally.  Does a person need an understanding of the way of salvation?  Then we share it.  Does the individual need medical help, a better education, or legal advocacy?  Out of love we give those as well (109-10).

Later Keller picks up and critiques the position espoused by Stott (go here for the positions). 

A second principle is that word and deed, mercy and evangelism are inseparable, existing in a “symbiotic,” interdependent relationship.  If there is one thing we must conclude from all that we have explored up to this point, it is that word and deed are inextricably united and inseparable. 

John Stott comes close to separating the two when when he says:

Social action is a partner of evangelism.  As partners the two belongs to each other and yet are independent of each other.  Each stands on its own feet in its own right alongside the other.  Neither is a means to the other, or even a manifestation of the other.  For each is an end in itself.

This seems to be inappropriate language.  We can recognize that Stott is seeking to avoid what we also argued against–calling social concern a means to an end.  But to say in turn that the ministry of mercy can stand on its own and is an end in itself may pave the way for social concern that is divorced from the preaching the gospel.  This must never happen.  Such deed ministry, even with a Christian motivation, cannot spread the kingdom of God.  In no way can we say evangelism and social concern are “independent.”  They are interdependent equals (111-12).

Finally, Keller presents his position as the “single-end” model.

The proper model is not (1) to see mercy as the means to evangelism, or (2) to see mercy and evangelism as independent ends, but (3) to see both word and deed, evangelism and mercy, as means to the single end of the spread of the kingdom of God.  To say that social concern could be done independently of evangelism is to cut mercy loose from kingdom endeavor.  It must then wither.  To say that evangelism can be done without also doing social concern is to forget that our goal is not individual “decisions,” but the bringing of all life and creation under the lordship of Christ, the kingdom of God (112).

So what do you think of Keller’s critique of Stott’s “two-ends” model?  Is Keller’s “single end” model a clearer and more faithful depiction of the biblical call for evangelism and social concern and their relationship with one another?