What does that question mean?

John Piper asked and answered this question on the Desiring God blog:

Should the Church Work on Social and Political Problems?

Here is his two part answer:

Yes . . .

If you mean: Should ten million Christians take 10 hours a week spent watching TV, and give that time to worthy social and political engagement.

No . . .

If you mean: The pastors should leave their Bible study and pulpits and counseling and evangelism, and put that time into politics and social ministries.

So here is the problem before we even get to his answer. What does that question mean? If working on social problems means working to alleviate suffering and caring for the needs of widows and orphans, caring for and feeding the poor, doing those things that Paul was eager to do as part of his commission as an apostle:

Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. (Galatians 2:10)

….then I can’t help but think this is a priority for the church. I especially was troubled by the idea that pastors shouldn’t be consumed with caring for the poor because it would interfere with their Bible study and sermon preparation. The Bible speaks quite frequently about the priority of caring for the needy but never once mentions or commends delivering a sermon to believers.

I guess I don’t see a division between caring for the needy and evangelism, between doing good works and proclaiming the Gospel. In fact it seems to me that the gospel proclamation and works of mercy (i.e. solving social problems) are not enemies but friends. I do think that anyone who thinks that he is too busy or that his sermons are too important to leave his study to go out among those who have spiritual and material needs is grossly misunderstanding Acts 6: 2. I would go further and say that any pastor who sees caring for the material needs of people as less important than studying in his office is no pastor at all, no matter what the sign in front of "his" church says.

What do you think? Is Piper right here?