Social Gospel … Marxist or Christian

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11627652/

“Should churches and individual Christians seek to help people with material problems and social needs, remedy social ills, and improve social institutions? Throughout history many congregations, Christian organizations, and individual believers have labored to do these things. Today, however, some political conservatives denounce the “social gospel” as misguided and unbiblical and counsel Christians to avoid or leave congregations that stress social justice.”

First, let us understand that the whole idea of the Social Gospel in its historical instantiation, as exemplified by men like Walter Rauschenbush and Washington Gladden, was an attempt to reinvent the Christian Gospel. The Social Gospel was often derivative of the school of higher criticism which denied the supernatural. Further it often pursued the oxymoronic course of “Christian Socialism.” This should clue us in immediately that the historical movement of the Social Gospel was thoroughly anti-Christ as seen in its attempt to syncretize Biblical Christianity w/ anti-Christian Marxian socialism.

However, having noted that it needs to be immediately be said that it is impossible for any belief system to not have a social aspect. As such the Christian gospel will always have a social side. The problem, historically speaking, is that the Social Gospel yielded the social impact of the Gospel of Marxism and not of the Gospel of Christianity.

There are those today who are reacting violently against any idea that the Gospel has a social side since they believe that the failures of earlier versions of the Social Gospel are proof positive that the Church should just delete the whole idea of its Gospel having a social side. These types would insist that the Gospel is all personal impact and no social effect.

So, if the point of the crosswalk article is that Christians need to embrace once again the “social gospel” in it’s progressive expression of the early 20th century then we would say that the crosswalk article is anathema. However, if the point of the crosswalk article is that the Gospel must have a social impact that is measured by biblical categories we could not help but agree. Unfortunately, as I read the crosswalk article, I am inclined to think that they are appealing to the former.

Crosswalk,

Television talk show host Glenn Beck urges Christians to run away as fast as they can from all churches that use “‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice'” on their websites. Rather than expressing the mission of these churches to reduce poverty and promote human rights, Beck asserts, these terms are simply “code words” for communism and Nazism. Social justice, he claims, is “a perversion of the gospel.”

Again, if we are talking about the historical “Social Gospel” movement we would have to say that Beck is correct. Keep in mind that the “Social Gospel” movement was devoted to pushing the Government to pursue its version of social justice by means of the theft and redistribution of wealth.

Second, there should be no problem in any Church as a Church seeking to raise funds, voluntarily given, to provide relief. The problem with the Social Gospel is when the Church seeks to move the Government to provide relief with monies taken involuntarily.

Crosstalk,

“Kim Moreland, a research associate for Charles Colson’s BreakPoint, argues that adherents of the social gospel believe they can “completely eradicate poverty and other types of social ills” largely by using the political process. Instead of preaching “the good news of the Gospel,” they allegedly argue that laws and government programs can create the good society.

Bret responds,

And such argumentation is the historic expression of the Social Gospel. That two professors from Grove City college would disagree w/ this assessment is indicative that Christians should quit sending their children to Grove City College.

Crosstalk writes,

In “The Shameful Social Gospel” T. A. McMahon, president of The Berean Call ministry, accuses proponents of the social gospel of assuming that Christians can best win people to their faith by alleviating the human suffering produced by poverty, disease, social injustice, and civil rights abuses. The social gospel is “a deadly disease” that reinforces “belief that salvation can be attained by doing good works” and acting morally and sacrificially. Every time Christians have undertaken practical actions to benefit humanity, McMahon contends, they have “compromised biblical faith and dishonored God” because the Bible does not command the “church to fix the problems of the world.”

Bret responds,

The Grove City professors who wrote this article need to answer the reality that the Social Gospel has always had a tendency to make “rice Christians.”

Second, I would have to agree that the Church is not commanded to fix the problems of the world. The Church is not primarily a relief agency, a government, a educational unit, a repository of the arts, a law center, or any number of other things. The Church is primarily the herald of Christ crucified, resurrected and ascended. Certainly what the Church teaches, touches on social subjects but it is the responsibility of individual Christians, having learned Christ in the Church, to extend the crown rights of King Jesus in each of these spheres and so bring the solution of Christ to the world.

That which fixes the problems of the world is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the discipling which comes in sanctification. Those who are to fix the problems of the world are individual Christians who are applying to all of life what the Church teaches from Scripture. The Church’s only role, beyond teaching, is one of correction when individual Christians posit heinous social theories (Marxism, Keynesianism, Deconstructionism, etc.) under the banner of Christ.

Crosswalk article,

“These commentators and others who censure the church’s social mission misread both history and the Bible. Certainly, some social gospel advocates have ignored evangelism and individual piety, and others have rejected Christian orthodoxy. However, many other Christians have endeavored both to save souls and help the poor and oppressed. They have often argued that these two missions are integrally related. William Wilberforce and other members of the Clapham Sect worked zealously in England in the early 1800s to abolish slavery, make work safer and better compensated, and assist the indigent. At the same time, leaders of the Second Great Awakening created numerous reform societies in America to achieve these same ends and to help other troubled groups. Many of the evangelicals who espoused social Christianity in the years between 1880 and 1920 labored to improve working conditions, management-labor relationships, and patterns of social interaction, renovate slums, reduce crime, abolish child labor, and increase racial justice. While working to win converts and plant churches around the world, thousands of Christian missionaries have also built hospitals and schools and tried to abolish slavery, end social abuses, and create more just societies.”

Bret responds,

Again, the Grove city professors seem confused in this article and part of that confusion stems from the fact that they don’t start w/ an ironclad definition of the Social Gospel. If they are applauding the work of individual Christians to relieve the poor and bring aid to the least of these who could or would ever disagree? However, historically, that has not been the definition of the “Social Gospel.” Historically the Social Gospel has meant Marxism wrapped up as Christianity. Historically the Social Gospel has meant the attempt, by the means of the policing arm of the State, to force redistribution of wealth. If this is what the Grove City college professors are advocating then they advocating Anti-Christ social policy. One must keep in mind that the Social Gospel never works because you simply can not make poor people rich by making rich people poor. All the Social Gospel can do over the long haul is make people equally miserable.

The thing we need to keep in mind here is that the Social Gospel of Biblical Christianity is in antithesis to the Social Gospel of Marxist “Christianity.” The Social Gospel of Biblical Christianity insists on the diminution of the State so that individuals are set free to themselves help the poor. In expressions of Marxist Social Gospel the pursuit of help to the poor, through forced levies of the state upon individuals, ends up hurting the poor since state sanctioned subsidies to the poor end up creating a larger pool of poor people all competing for a restricted number of dollars.

Crosswalk article,

“Second, the Bible clearly commands Christians to care for the sick, feed the hungry, protect the environment, and insure political and social justice. Quoting from Isaiah 61, Jesus summarized His earthly mission as preaching “good news to the poor,” setting prisoners free, helping the blind regain their sight, and liberating the oppressed (Lk. 4:18-19). In the parable of the sheep and goats, He declared that those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take in strangers, and visited the sick and imprisoned—”the least of these”—are assisting Him (Mt. 25:31-46).

How can God’s love truly abide in anyone, the apostle John asked, who has substantial possessions and refuses to help the needy? “Let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action,” he adds (I John 3:17-18). Faith without works, James declares, is dead. He exhorts us to show our faith by our acts of compassion and generosity (2:14-18).”

Bret responds,

The Grove City professors keep missing the issue. Yes, individual Christians and even the Church as the Church should look after the “least of these.” But one gets the sense throughout this article that what the Grove City boys are really angling for is the State to take up these responsibilities. If that is what they are angling for we would insist that their Marxist slips are showing. It is not the States job to rob from the “haves” to give to the “have nots” for such a policy only insures a ever burgeoning number of the “have nots,” since subsidies always create more of what is being subsidized (in this case the poor) and since taxes always destroys what is being taxed (in this case the wealthy).

When we pursue a Marxist Social Gospel we are showing our hatred for the needy.

“Crosswalk article,

The Old Testament prophets echoed these themes. Isaiah 58, for example, commands us to “loose the chains of injustice,” “set the oppressed free,” share food with the hungry, and provide shelter and clothing for the poor (vv. 6-7). The Bible mentions justice about 700 times, more than almost any other topic, testifying to God’s passion for justice in the political, social, and economic spheres.”

Bret responds,

Yes, Yes, Yes … everyone agrees with this. The question is though, how is this to be done. Is this to be done through the Marxist Social Gospel or a Evolutionary Capitalism that insures death and destruction for all except the elite party members or is this to be pursued through Biblical Capitalism or some kind of Distributism and Subsidiarity?

Also, one needs to warn here against the incipient idea that the poor are more virtuous than the wealthy just for the reason they are poor. God is not on the side of the wicked poor against the righteous wealthy. Poverty is no sign that God is on your side and wealth is no sign that God is opposed to you.

What many Marxist Social Gospelers need to realize is that many people are poor because their pagan world and life view makes and keeps them poor. What many Marxist Social Gospelers need to realize is that their Social Gospel, where people are taught that they are victims and are encouraged to be envious and where the poor have their resentiment nourished and justified, is perpetuating poverty. The Marxist Social Gospel does nothing to solve the problem of the poor but only exacerbates the problem of poverty

Crosswalk article,

“Identifying the Christian faith with a political platform, program, or party is dangerous. It can distract Christians from their primary calling—to love and serve God in all aspects of our lives and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves—and no one platform, program, or party fully expresses God’s design for earthly life. Churches should refrain from endorsing political candidates or adopting positions on most specific political issues. However, as individuals and members of parachurch groups, Christians can take political stances and lobby for legislation we believe accords with biblical principles. Moreover, we should fight to remedy social ills and end injustices.”

Bret responds,

It is this statement that makes me think that the Grove City professors are advocating a Marxist Social Gospel. A few comments,

1.) I fully agree that no one political party fully expresses God’s design for earthly life. How could that be possible given the fullness of God’s design for earthly life. However, this does not mean that there couldn’t be a political party that Christian could identify with and point to as being “Christian.” All because such a thing doesn’t exist today in these united States doesn’t mean it couldn’t exist. One only has to remember Groen Van Prinister’s and Abraham Kuyper’s “anti-revolutionary” party in the Netherlands.

2.) Churches should always speak to political issues where the Scriptures have explicitly spoken to or have spoken to by necessary deduction. As our culture drifts increasingly away from a Biblical Christian worldview the necessity of the Church to speak on more and more political issues will increase since the political realm will increasingly seek to circumvent the authority of the Church as it pertains to moral issues.

3.) Social ills will best be remedied by the Church preaching Christ and by then discipling those who turn and trust Christ. Social ills are not best remedied by a thought process that holds that if the institutions will be changed then the individuals in the institutions will be changed. Individual conversion must precede institutional change but where individual conversions multiply institutional change will be increasingly pressed. The Marxist Social Gospelers tend to have this backwards, since like all Marxist, they tend to blame societal ills on evil cultural institutions versus a Biblical Social Gospel that blames the evil cultural institutions on individual sin natures that have not been visited w/ conversion.

Crosswalk article,

“In a world filled with social ills—where 27 million people are still enslaved, one-sixth of the population is malnourished, billions suffer from disease, unemployment, illiteracy, and oppression, where war, racism, and sexism are rampant—and where billions do not know Christ, we must stop debating whether the Bible enjoins us to help meet people’s material and physical needs or to focus exclusively on their spiritual needs. Instead, as Jesus did, we must address both types of needs.”

Bret responds,

Notice in the list of the first sentence that “billions who do not know Jesus Christ” comes last. I hold that to be fairly significant. I would have listed it first.

Second, Fifty years of the great society and the war on poverty in these united States has shown us that it does little good to throw money at the relief of people’s physical needs. Money does not solve what is aberrant in the souls of men and women.

Third, we need to prioritize our giving. We need to first take care of the poor who are part of the Household of faith before we take care of the poor who are Christ haters. Concretely, this means looking after the poor in Nigeria who are fighting Muslims and the Christian poor in the Sudan who are also fighting Muslims.

Fourth, I would have dearly loved the Grove City professors to have pointed out where they find the rampant racism and sexism. I don’t see it. However, what I do see is those two categories being favorite Marxist whipping boys used to advance their egalitarian agenda.