Who do the people in our cities look to as the Good Samaritan? The church, or the government? For much of history, churches have embodied compassion by actively engaging with and ministering to those in need.
Compassion went beyond mere pity; it was a call to suffer alongside an individual and alleviate their suffering, inspired by Jesus’ example. He came to earth and showed in life and death the literal meaning of compassion—suffering and bringing hope to the hopeless. But today, compassion often seems like a watered-down concept, defined only as “sympathetic pity and concern.” This falls short of the life-changing empathy the church once brought to those facing hardship, homelessness, and loss.
The Shift
The role of actively engaging with those in crisis began to shift when government agencies stepped in to provide essential support services. Though this assistance has undeniably helped, it has also unintentionally contributed to a church that has grown comfortable stepping back, perhaps with the idea that “the government has it covered.”
Over time, material aid alone—even with the best intentions—missed the mark of truly restoring people’s lives, while the church, once the Good Samaritan of the city, risked becoming more like the priest or Levite who passes by those in need.
When we consider the current social services landscape, we find that the government often does a good job in terms of infrastructure and coordination. With a networked system, the government can mobilize quickly and efficiently when a crisis such as Hurricane Helene or Milton strikes.
By contrast, many churches lack the resources and preparation needed to address large-scale emergencies; as a result, they may get overwhelmed or find that they simply don’t have a plan in place. Amid significant crises and natural disasters, some congregations become so overstretched that pastors and staff face burnout, while the church itself risks shutting down or redirecting its energy away from compassionate ministry.
Offering Something the Government Cannot
It’s worth acknowledging that the government does meet some immediate needs in disaster relief, but there are profound benefits that only the church can bring. Imagine if churches were not only spiritually prepared but emotionally and physically equipped as “safe havens” during moments of natural disaster or personal crisis. Imagine volunteers trained not just in emergency response but in reaching communities with the gospel, ministering in ways that can truly change lives. In these moments, the church could embody the Good Samaritan, giving people in crisis something the government simply cannot: a reminder of God’s love and hope.
Consider the last time you saw someone experiencing homelessness. Did that person arrive at this place overnight, or were there missed opportunities where the church could have stepped in to provide hope, perhaps at a critical turning point in their life? This is not to say that the church alone is responsible for each person’s outcome, but we must recognize that many people still feel forgotten by the church as it leans more on government intervention for society’s most vulnerable.
The church has long been entrusted with a mission to reveal the beauty of God to a world that often feels lost. This is a role the government can’t fill. If the church steps back, who then is there to remind people that the true source of hope and redemption is found in Jesus? Too often, disengagement has dulled our impact, leaving broken individuals feeling hopeless and increasingly distant from God.
It’s time for the church to revive its calling to compassion and re-embrace its role in times of crisis. Jesus’ command to “love our neighbor” was not conditional or partial; it’s a call to lay down our lives for each other. By reclaiming its role as the Good Samaritan, the Church has an opportunity to partner with government efforts—not to replace them but to add emotional and spiritual depth and lasting change. Together, we can reach deeper and restore lives beyond temporary aid, offering true hope that material support alone cannot provide.
