The Social Gospel is not the Gospel

As a young person I lived and ministered for a time in the city of Chicago. The poverty and slum conditions around me tugged on my heartstrings. I visited poor Mr. Shenkle, whose disabled, nonverbal son lived in a dark room in the back of his filthy apartment. I spent time with Daphne and her hydrocephalic infant son. Josephine and her boyfriend Jack shared some kind of delusional mental illness, and I feared for their child’s safety even as I tried to show them how to make healthy baby foods. I also tried to help Betty Schneider clean up her fully hoarded row house. I felt drawn to the suffering of people around me, convinced I must do my part to change the world.

Because of this heartfelt desire to make a difference, I resonate with the underlying motive of what is called the social gospel. In the end, though, I reject it, and I think you should too. Let me explain why.

A History

First, a little background. In the late 19th century, prominent Protestants proposed a solution to the prevailing needs of the day—poverty, slum conditions, inequality, and child labor. The solution would refocus Christians from personal salvation to “social salvation.” Christians, leaders like Walter Rauschenbusch said, should stop obsessing about their personal standing with God and become agents of social justice. They should jump into the political arena with both feet, working to end ills like child labor. The movement led to the formation of the Federal Council of Churches in 1908, which is now the National Council of Churches, a big player in the ecumenical movement.

The social gospel’s core tenet is that God’s kingdom can be established on earth. Christians, it said, should labor to reconstruct the social order. No need to witness, because helping people is witnessing. This is similar to: “Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.”

Pushing back on the idea that the world was a shipwreck from which individuals needed to be salvaged, social Christians argued that the world could be saved, along with its art, music, literature, industry, entertainment, and politics. The pursuit of heaven became secondary to the pursuit of heaven on earth.

The influence of the movement lives on, dovetailing with the Civil Rights Movement and social justice initiatives of today such as Black Lives Matter. And it all seems so Christian to try to make the world a more just and fair place.

Charity

The true church has always influenced the world toward justice and compassion. In its purest form, Christianity is like salt in the earth, flavoring everything around it. The first impulse of a born-again believer is to do good, and it shows—Christians have overwhelmingly participated in more charitable volunteerism and giving than the unchurched and even other faith groups.

But proponents of the social gospel go beyond charity. They don’t want to merely assist with immediate need, but to change the systems that led to the need in the first place. Why do the poor exist? The social gospeler’s answer is, “Because of systemic injustice. And it is the church’s job to bring systemic change.” Walter Rauschenbusch said:

Jesus was not just concerned with saving souls for the afterlife, but with transforming the social structures that oppress and exploit people.

So What’s the Problem?

If a person feels led by God into political activism designed to transform social structures, I won’t stop them. Good and righteous causes exist. We must do what we can within our individual callings and stations to effect change. My concern is not with activism or a burden for social change.

My concern is replacing the gospel with the social gospel.

Remember Paul’s words: “If anyone preaches any other gospel … let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9).

These words should give us pause.

The truth is that our adversary will attempt by any means possible to distract us from the gospel, to displace it with an alluring alternative.

And the gospel is alluring. It feels noble and righteous to think of ourselves as world-changers. There can be a measure of moral superiority in it, as we ride the waves of passionate movements shouting slogans like, “Be the light!” Politics by its nature leads to the “othering” of opponents, and when a Christian embraces a political movement, they “other” all those outside it. Let’s all admit this feels good to prideful nature.

But do we want to feed it?

The True Gospel

I could merely point out the flaws of the social gospel, but the best way to detect a counterfeit is to hold up the true. So let me do that. What is the true gospel?

The Greek word is euangellion, which means “good news.” In his first letter to Corinth, Paul equates the gospel with the Cross, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect” (1:17). Author Ellen White said, “Hanging upon the Cross, Christ was the gospel.”

The gospel is the good news that Christ made an infinite sacrifice to save humanity.

Aren’t you grateful?

Let’s summarize some of the ways in which the true gospel contrasts with the social gospel.

The true gospel . . ,

. . . changes the heart first versus the system first. It produces good works in the lives of believers. These good works, including care for the poor and marginalized, create a quiet revolution. True believers will obey Jesus’ injunction to minister to the hungry, thirsty, naked, and imprisoned. Matthew 25 presents those works as the sole criterion for the judgment. The gospel is the root, and good works are the fruit.

. . . relies on the power of the Spirit versus the power of the state. Speaking of persecution throughout the ages, Ellen White said, “Finding herself destitute of the power of love, [the church] has reached out for the strong arm of the state to enforce her dogmas and execute her decrees.” The social gospel places burden of world change on the church, proposing political means to achieve that change. Guess what else does this? Christian Nationalism! The list of desired changes may differ, but the foundational call to join with the power of the state is the same. Christian Nationalists want to save the world by imposing a religion on it; social gospelers want to save the world by imposing social justice on it. Both subtly and chillingly imply that a church/state alliance will save the world.

. . . rests in Christ’s righteousness versus human righteousness. The original heresy, expressed as a fig leaf coverup, demonstrated human self-reliance. Since that moment in the garden, humans have tried to generate merit. The social gospel ultimately becomes an alternate form of legalism. In it, we aren’t saved by keeping the fine points of the law, but by doing good works. This may be taught, not explicitly, but in emphasis. If we dwell on human works, we’ll start to see them as everything. In The Tyranny of Merit, Michael Sandal said, “The more we think of ourselves as self-made and self-sufficient, the harder it is to learn gratitude and humility. And without these sentiments, it is hard to care for the common good.”

I agree. Let’s contribute to the common good, but from a place of humility. Thank you, Jesus, for saving our souls and ultimately this planet.

Your thoughts? Leave a comment below.