This is an interesting point, isn’t it? We seem naturally drawn to currying favour with the rich and powerful, even though they, very often, are not particularly nice people. We bend over backwards to please them and make sure everything is just right for them, while taking far less account of the needs of the more lowly among us and around us.
We justify this to ourselves by arguing that the rich are harder to reach with the gospel, so removing as many obstacles as we can is vital to contextualising the message to their cultural expectations and needs.
We justify our desire to reach the powerful with the gospel because, by definition, they have greater influence over companies, cities and countries than the poor, so perhaps changing enough of their hearts will start to change the nation.
These things are valid, but I think we need to be careful about the balance of our time and energy. If we’re spending 80% of our resources on reaching 20% of the population – and the 20% who are most likely to be resistant to our message, oppressive to others and dismissive of God – while leaving 80% spiritually hungry but neglected, I’m not sure we’re going to hear God’s “Well done, God and faithful servant.”
Each soul is as important to God’s kingdom as the next – Jesus changed the world by choosing a rag-tag bunch of ordinary blokes rather than the people who appeared to wield the power. His example is always worth following.