This has been a really helpful conversation for me. JD and Mike, thanks for jumping in.  Good stuff. 

I think the language of social ministry being a “sign” or a “display” of the gospel and/or the kingdom is good. Both those words have a sense of pointing to something beyond themselves, which is an important thing for us as Christians to keep in mind when we’re doing social ministry. I think the strongest case for a ministry of social restoration comes from a few places: Jesus’ commands to love our neighbor (the Good Samaritan, for example), his command to do good so the pagans will glorify God, and his commands to be salt and light in the world in order to preserve and illuminate it. There’s also Tabitha in Acts 9, as JD pointed out, the apostles’ command to "do good to all men," and maybe even “xenophilia” in a few places, too.  And of course there’s the example of the early church---there's obviously a tradition of social ministry there. All that would lead me to lead my people to do these sorts of ministries.

But I also want to be careful here. When you write a long paragraph like that listing out the fifteen or twenty places where you see this sort of thing, you run the risk of leaving the impression that social restorative ministry is just absolutely everywhere in the New Testament. And I don’t think it is.  

So Mike, I have to wonder if you’re not overstating the case a little bit in your post—maybe in a couple of places. Tell me what you think:

First, it’s true of course that redemption will ultimately involve the total transformation of the world—its systems, its hierarchies, its economy (whatever that might look like in eternity), etc. But you have to admit that to move from that fact to the church’s obligation to do social restoration ministry as a foretaste of that final consummation is at best an implication. That theological connection makes sense to me, but it’s not a connection that’s drawn explicitly by the New Testament, is it? If anything, we have to say it’s implicit—not illegitimate, but implicit and therefore . . . perhaps to be held somewhat lightly? 

Second, you say that it seems to you that the NT epistles deal with "social issues" very frequently, and you list a number of things like family dynamics, food sacrificed to idols, homosexuality, master/slave relations, and others to make the point.  But it seems to me that most of those things aren't really what we're talking about here. Marriage, master/slaves, idol food, homosexuality, treatment of women—Those are all matters of Christian ethics, Christian behavior, aren't they?  They’re not mercy ministry, or social engagement. (Some of them, in fact—women being silent, slaves obeying masters—wouldn’t exactly cause much rejoicing among the pagans if we started holding them up as examples of NT social engagement!) If those things are more ethical than social restorative, that's important because it means that we can't just list things like that as proof of there being a strong theme in the NT of the church working for social restoration.  Maybe there is such a theme, but those things aren't it.

The only thing you mention in that list that might fit (in my opinion) in the category of "social restoration" is "relief of poverty."  But here's my hitch:  There's really neither example nor command in the NT for Christians to relieve poverty, except within the family of faith, is there?  Jesus doesn't really do any relief of poverty. The apostles don't do any relief of poverty.  No one exhorts the church to do any relief of poverty, except within the family of faith.

Let me sum up my point here perhaps too bluntly: To me, the entire NT seems to be at pains to say, "Don't mess this up.  The Christian gospel is NOT about relieving physical poverty."  Jesus says the poor will always be with you, he says you can give to the poor "whenever you want to," Peter tells the guy asking for alms that he's not going to give him any silver or gold.  The references in the epistles to helping the poor are (always?) about the poor within the community of faith.  It's almost as if Jesus and the apostles knew it would be tempting for Christians to make Christianity primarily about relief of the poor, etc., and moved to cut that error off early. 

Again, I’m not saying that I wouldn’t lead my people to do social restorative kinds of ministries.  I would.  I see enough in the Bible—OT, Jesus, and even the epistles—to do that. At the end of the day, I think what we’re talking about is a matter of emphasis. None of us would say that social ministries are illegitimate, and none of us would say that they are ultimate, either. But in the spirit of talking about emphasis, I suppose my point here is to caution against building up and prioritizing a fully worked-out, church-mission-determining theology of social restoration when the New Testament doesn’t explicitly or forcefully do that.