THE "SOCIAL" GOSPEL

This posting is a response to a comment made by Dan regarding the previous posting, "MYSTICISM AND THIS GENERATION". I felt it was appropriate to respond in this manner so that I could add relevant links, and because it was originally my plan to further explain some of these "other gospels" I had mentioned in that post in greater detail at a later date. So here it is...

It is important at the outset to accurately define what I mean when I use the label "social gospel". For a good definition of it, read the definition at The Canadian Dictionary website (you can link directly to it by clicking on the underlined words above). According to this definition, the purpose of the social gospel is to create social change, reforming the world's social programs by aligning them with scripture (their rather thin view of scripture) or inventing new ones. Please keep in mind, that by and large, the proponents of the social gospel hold a liberal view of scripture, not believing it to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God, but rather a historical book written by men and containing error.

In the social gospel, salvation is collective rather than individual. They also do not believe in the literal return of Christ to the earth at a future date, but rather that we have been left on earth to build the kingdom of God here and now, and that's all there is. No new heaven and no new earth. It is basically a works-based gospel rather than a grace-based one and it teaches that we can follow Jesus without being born again. Their definitions of biblical terms are very different from the biblically-based definitions of them. Instead of reading scripture to understand what it says and means, they enforce their pet belief onto scripture, twisting it to align it with their own theology; therefore, their theology is not biblical. To them, the cross was a senseless act of violence against an innocent man who died a premature death at the hands of the Romans; Christ did not die to make atonement for our sins; and He did not lay down His life by His own will, rather His life was taken from Him. This is contrary to Scripture and this is what happens when you proof-text. The cross does not have the same meaning to them as it does to conservative evangelicals; their teaching makes the cross of no effect.The Christ they present was a good man who came to teach us how to live life better and make the world a better place to live, rather than a Saviour who would completely reform us as individuals.

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:17-18

In a practical sense, is it really possible to reform society and align it with biblical values? (Because this is what proponents of the social gospel want to do). In reality, this is not possible. The social gospel denies the presence and power of sin and our fallen human nature. They have completely erased sin from the equation. Now if you believe that we aren't sinners, you can buy into the social gospel, because that is what it does. If you deny that the inhabitants of earth are under the curse of sin, why would you need a saviour to die to pay the price for sin? It would be unnecessary. Then Christ becomes just another prophet, another good man, another great leader, but not the Saviour.

Now, to move on...

Should the cross change how we treat people?
Absolutely. We are to love justice, to have mercy, and walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8). This should be the outcome of a redeemed life. But those who adhere to a social gospel will not first come to the cross for cleansing. The works that they do are works of the flesh, not of the Spirit. This gospel misses a key ingredient. They attempt to make Jesus Lord, but refuse to accept Him as saviour and redeemer. This gospel attempts to save by good works, placing man in the position of redeemer. The Christ of the social gospel is not the Christ of the Bible, just as their cross is not the cross of the Bible. Yes, they use the Bible to validate what they teach, but they are using it incorrectly. They want to throw solid biblical doctrine to the wind.

Romans16:16-18 says:
"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness."

In order to become a true servant of righteousness, according scripture, we must first be made free from sin through the atoning blood (according to the doctrine which was delivered). Until then we are servants of sin, which leads to death.

Christ and His disciples fed those who had come to hear what they were teaching when they became hungry. They met people's needs as they were going about preaching the gospel. They didn't go preaching in the villages and around the countryside with the purpose of solving a hunger problem in the physical sense. They didn't set out to abolish slavery or close down houses of prostitution. Christ did not come to correct societal problems, but to reach individuals. I believe Christ wants followers who come to Him with pure motives, not just for the food or for healing...but because they want HIM, the bread of life. He was always pointing to Himself as the ultimate fulfillment of their deepest need. When Jesus walked on the earth, did He heal every sick person on the earth? It sure doesn't say so. He may have even healed some who were not interested in the salvation He came to offer. But this was definitely not His primary objective. He did not come to establish an earthly kingdom, but a spiritual one; so His primary objective was spiritual rather than physical. But obviously that doesn't mean that he ignored the physical needs of those around Him. This is where we have to carefully examine our own hearts. Are the good deeds we do for others just a way of excusing ourselves from offering others the gift of salvation? Have they become a substitute? It's always so much easier to just offer somebody a cup of coffee and walk away feeling good about ourselves, rather than being willing to step out in faith and share the gospel with them. But if that person does not know Christ, we will have loved them straight into the pit of hell. Left them without even trying to meet their primary need. We need to examine our motives for helping others. Is it with a sincere heart? Because true love always seeks to meet man's deepest need, his spiritual need.

If you see a man dying on the side of the road, should you rush over and preach to him? Well, I think trying to save his life first by getting him medical help would be a good idea if it looked as if he were going to survive, and then later go back and witness to him. But what if he is in the process of dying in your arms? Would you not help him know the way to eternal life? When it comes down to the crunch, it becomes obvious what is more important in the eternal realm of things.

When my daughter was in Brazil on a missions trip this summer she was deeply impacted by the poverty she saw all around her. She told me that she realized there was no way either she, nor the group she was with, nor the church in the area, and not even the denomination she represented could solve the hunger problem there. She understood that the best thing she could do for the people there was give them the gospel.

I believe it is a fallacy to think that we can solve the world's problems, and also the height of arrogance. This, however, is the social gospel's objective. We will not save and change the world. Just look at what Scripture says about how it's all going to end. It has a different ending than the social gospel.

***************************

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." 2 Corinthians 11:13-15

***************************

If you would like to read some comprehensive articles about what the social gospel is, I suggest you start with the following links in the order given:

A Brief History of the Social Gospel by John A. Battle
(this article also explains what the true gospel is)

The Impact Of The "Social Gospel" On The Church by Sewell Hall

Treason in the Church: Trading Truth for a "Social Gospel" by Berit Kjos

It always pays to do your homework! :)

****************************

Some current promoters of the social gospel are Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, Rick Warren, N.T. Wright (see my November 24th post entitled DO YOU NEED A NEW PERSPECTIVE? by clicking on his name), and Bono of U2. Check out the links provided here to see how this is so.

If you are interested in hearing an example of solid biblical doctrine on this matter, putting faith and good works in perspective, go here to listen to a song by Robert Evans entitled "Make Me Want You Want Me To Be", found in "Other Songs #1"~at the bottom of the page~at his website called Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs.