Have you
noticed a fad racing through our churches? It is a mindset and worldview that
redefines the mission of the church as poverty alleviation and working for
social justice to bring about the kingdom of God as a just and equitable
society, here and now. At points, this trend even appears to redefine the
gospel message itself.
You have doubtlessly
heard one of its premises pop up here and there and thought, ÒThis sounds a bit
strangeÓ and let it pass. Then you heard something similar and considered,
Òthat sounds good but something about it bothers me,Ó and let it pass also.
Without realizing it, you may be hearing an entire theology dangerous to the
spiritual health of the church.
In this
book, we will look at what this fad really is, where it came from and why it is
one of the most serious threats to the life of Bible believing churches today. It
is a leaven damaging the whole lump by diverting the church from its purpose
and calling. We will also show what the Bible teaches about being true leaven.
This is not
really a new fad. It is an old one that failed, dressed in conservative
language but destined for the same fate.
A biblical
mandate for the church to alleviate poverty is an indisputable truth
according to this fad. We are told it is incumbent on all Christians. Genuine
believers authenticate their witness by devoting themselves to the service of
the poor.
This is all part of GodÕs plan, so we hear, to bring
social justice to the earth, renew fallen creation and make the kingdom of God
visible to mankind. This is supposed to bring revival.
The proponents of this movement are so adamant on
this point; the term mandate is
scarcely strong enough.
In their book, When Helping
Hurts, authors Corbett & Fikkert of the Chalmers Institute state,[3]
É each of us is responsible to participate at some
level in helping our congregation to be everything Scripture calls it to be,
including fulfilling its biblical mandate to care for the poor.[4]
In the context, they mean the poor of the community
and the world, not those of the church only. They think it a moral duty to
serve the poor anywhere. The only thing that could vary in this mandate is the manner in which we go
about it.
Éeach Christian has a unique set of giftsÉthat
influence the scope and manner in which to fulfill the biblical mandate to help
the poor.[5]
These authors even define the apostolic ministry of
reconciliation of mankind to God as poverty alleviation.
First, they quote 2Cor.5: 20— We implore you on ChristÕs behalf: Be
reconciled to God. Then they interpret it as, ÒPoverty alleviation is the ministry of reconciliation.Ó[6]
The way to reconcile mankind to God, according to
Corbett & Fikkert, is by alleviating world poverty. We would ignore such an
interpretation were it not in large bold letters in the middle of a page,
making it a central theme.
We are told in When Helping
Hurts, the reason why Israel
was sent into captivity was because they failed to feed the poor.
Why was Israel sent into captivity? ...Indeed
numerous passages in the Old Testament indicate that idolatry was a problem in
Israel. These passages [from Isaiah] give a
broader pictureÉ Why was God so displeased? Both passages emphasize that God
was furious over IsraelÕs failure to care for the poor and the oppressed.[7]
Indeed, Israel was negligent to its poor. That is,
its own poor, along with foreigners within their borders. There was never a mandate to feed the Philistines.
What this has to do with the Great Commission is unclear. The implication
may be that unless the church gets busy with its mission of reconciling mankind
to God through poverty alleviation, we may end up in captivity also.
What irony! The church will indeed go into captivity
if we follow the new social gospel assumptions. Spiritual captivity, that is,
just as in the early middle ages when the church decided to bring about the
kingdom of God by invading political and social structures, along with adding
works to the definition of the gospel. Result: the Òdark ages.Ó
Tim Keller, Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in
New York says,
A life poured out in doing justice for the poor is
the inevitable sign of any real, true gospel faith.[8]
Éwhen the Spirit enables us to understand what Christ
has done for us, the result is a life poured out in deeds of justice and
compassion for the poor.[9]
É true experience of the grace of Jesus Christ
inevitably motivates a man or woman to seek justice in the world.[10]
According to Keller, Jesus was clear about how caring for the poor works
out in practice.
Indeed, Jesus often ate meals in homes with his
friends and peers. Rather—to put this in a more modern context—he
is saying that we should spend far more of our money and wealth on the poor
than we do on our own entertainment, or on vacations or on eating out and
socializing with important peers.[11]
In Humanitarian Jesus, Dobson & Buckley tell us helping the poor is
evidence of salvation.[12] The authors assert that Christians are dead wrong who do not believe they are
called to serve and invest in those suffering
under sickness, poverty, disease and injusticeÉ[13]
Actually, this is a half-truth. Such is indeed a
calling of the entire Body of Christ in the world, though not necessarily every
individual Christian or church nor by the means these authors suggest.
HereÕs how we see it:
From an
evangelist friend we heard a life poured out in evangelism is the inevitable
sign of real, true gospel faith.
From others
we heard a life poured out in seeking spiritual gifts was the inevitable sign
of real, true gospel faith.
Now from
this current fad, we hear a life poured out in doing justice for the poor is
the inevitable sign of real, true gospel faith.
Just enough truth exists in all of these to be
dangerous. A life poured out in following our own gifts, calling and conscience
before God, is the inevitable sign of a healthy mind.
It's biblical that we owe the poor as much of our
money as we can possibly give away. [14] —Tim Keller
It is becoming increasingly popular to view service
to the poor as transcending mere charity. It is a debt we must pay. We are
unjust if we do not give it because it is theirs. The poor have a moral right to our
assistance.
In Generous Justice,
Keller appeals to an Old Testament
law to illustrate the debt-to-the-poor idea. The law proscribed that a
landowner during harvest must leave some of the grain for the poor to glean.
(Deut.24)
If we read this text closely, we see that part of the
landownerÕs harvest was ÒforÓ the immigrant and the poor. That means that in
GodÕs eyes, it was actually ÒtheirsÓÉIf the owner did not limit his profits and
provide the poor with an opportunity to work for their own benefit in the
fields, he did not simply deprive the poor of charity but of justice, of their
right. [15]
In context, Keller correctly points out we are
mere stewards before God of our possessions. He also shows how the society has
been unfair to inner city residents. However, from this he concludes, ÒTherefore, if you have been assigned the
goods of this world by God and you donÕt share them with others, it isnÕt just
stinginess, it is injustice.Ó [16]
Other evangelicals of a more liberal stance, such as
Jim Wallis, Ron Sider and Tony Campolo have been advocating the same for twenty
years or more. None of it is original. It is an entitlement concept straight
out of Rauschenbusch.
In Christianity and the
Social Crisis, 1907, liberal theologian Walter Rauschenbusch, leader in the United States of the old social gospel movement, elaborated
the idea that a wealthy man is ÒÉnot only
a steward of God, but a steward of the people. He derives it from the people
and he holds it in trust for the people.Ó [17]
Rauschenbusch says that if the law has
erroneously granted to the wealthy Òabsolute
titleÓ to his property and has Òneglected
to insistÓ on the rights of the common people to that wealth, then Òthat does not settle the moral title in the
least.Ó [18]
In that case, it becomes the duty of the church to
play the role of conscience and remind the affluent of what they owe to the
less fortunate. In this way, ÒThe
Christian church could make a splendid contribution to the new social justice
in pointing out the latent public rightsÉÓ [19]
Notice how RauschenbuschÕs use of the term social justice
embodies the idea of debt owed to the poor. When social gospel teachers, old or
new, use this term social justice,
they do not mean charity. The word justice is not synonymous with charity and can only refer to
rectification of an immoral act. In their minds, we owe the poor.
These teachers are claiming it is our duty to rectify
the injustice we committed. It is not therefore a generous charity but a
generous justice.
If this is not what these teachers mean by social justice, then the term has no
meaning.
It is significant that the word gospel occurs some one hundred times in the New Testament. Not once
is it associated with a mandate to alleviate poverty. This so-called biblical mandate is sheer fiction, a
conjecture based on erroneous premises. Nothing in the New Testament teaches we
are in debt to the poor.
In Ecuador, during our evangelistic ministry, we
helped the destitute at various opportunities, not because we needed to do so
or because they were poor, but because they were people. Likewise, we taught
wealthy people when we ran across those, not because they were rich but because
they were people.
This entire teaching is a reprehensible distortion of
the Great Commission, gospel ministry, individual gifts and callings. If left unchecked, it will eventually
forfeit the power of the gospel itself.
Gospel ministry is fully accomplished when the word
of God is preached and taught, plus nothing.
From this
chapter we learnÉ
á
There exists a current
fad claiming a biblical mandate on the church to alleviate poverty in the
community or the world. This is nonsense.
á
This fad
confuses the difference between Christian charity and social justice. The
former is incumbent on Christians. The latter is not.
á
Some feel that
generosity to the poor is a debt owed to them as justice. The New Testament
never says this.
á
This current
emphasis concerning the relationship of Christians to the poor is really old
liberalism repackaged for
conservatives. Nothing about it is original.
Chapter 2: Flirting With Fallacy
According
to the movement, the gospel message itself embodies not only a call to personal
salvation but also a commitment to the physical needs of humanity at large, the
poor in particular and not just within the church. They see rectifying social
injustice as an inseparable part of the mission of the church and a key factor
in defining the spirituality of its members.
Without
these endeavors, they say, the gospel itself is truncated, incomplete and
unbalanced. To their thinking, this alone is the authentic gospel.
Such
teaching is actually a reiterated version of the failed social gospel of the
early part of the twentieth century, dressed up to appeal to conservatives.
How the new differs from the old
The Social Gospel movement is a Protestant Christian intellectual movement that was most prominent in the late 19th century
and early 20th century. The movement applied Christian ethics to social problems, especially social justice, inequality, etc. Social Gospel leaders were predominantly associated with the
liberal wing [of politics]Éand most were theologically liberalÉ[20]
The
difference between the two is simply liberal versus conservative. This new version
is in fact the old, presented to Christians as a wake-up call for social
justice.
The current
movement has its own historical perspective of the old. It goes something like
this:
When the original social gospel movement began,
liberalism was its bedfellow. Conservatives reacted
by concentrating solely on evangelism. Apart from liberalism, nothing was
particularly wrong with the movement. If evangelicals today restore their
pursuit of social justice, it will result in a powerhouse movement the world
will notice and appreciate. (This is not a quote but a summary of the insinuations
typical in their writings.)
This
historical scenario sounds perfectly reasonable. It is also dead wrong.
Liberalism
or no, it was still wrong for these reasons:
á
A false
definition of the gospel or of gospel ministry.
á
An unbiblical mission of the church.
á
It taught that Christians
owe support to the poor.
á
It defined the kingdom of God as a just and equitable
society before Jesus comes.
The
same is wrong with todayÕs version, falsely defining the gospel as two
indispensable halves, preaching plus service to the poor. This includes
creating a just and equitable society through Christianizing governmental
institutions, along with environmental concerns.
Current
social gospel conservatives have embraced such definitions while considering
themselves distinct from the old movement, solely because they reject
liberalism. This is self-deceptive. The definitions themselves
are blatantly liberal and woefully unbiblical.
For
both the old and new, meeting the material needs of mankind is just as much a
part of the mission of the church as meeting the spiritual needs. All we need is
to balance our current emphasis on
evangelism with social justice and we will have a holistic gospel that will advance the kingdom of God and stun the
world.
This
is why we say, as kindly and firmly as we can, that the new social gospel is
merely the old, repackaged for conservatives.
Imagine
a hill with a church on top. A liberal theologian drives a bulldozer up a path
he created and shoves the church off the hill. He replaces it with one to his
liking.
Later,
a conservative theologian drives his own bulldozer up the hill but by another
route. He bulldozes the liberal building and replaces it with another...identical to the liberal one he just destroyed!
He says, ÒOh, but mine is different because I came by a different route.Ó
That
is how the new social gospel proponents think. They insist their message is fine
because they are otherwise conservative.
Though
liberalism was
certainly a problem, this was not the reason for the movement. When liberal
Baptist pastor, Walter Rauschenbusch, launched the social gospel movement in
the U.S. in 1907 with his book Christianity and the Social
Crisis, he was not addressing his fellow liberals. He was speaking to Christians
in general, liberal and conservative, Protestant and Catholic.
His
motivation, as he made clear, was concern for the deplorable conditions
resulting in the abuse of workers through unregulated capitalism. A cursory
perusal of his writing shows Rauschenbusch cared little about theological
precision unless it supported his presuppositions.
His
social concerns were legitimate. Sadly, he unwittingly steered many down a
wrong path by completely redefining the churchÕs role in the world.
Conservative
teachers today believe adding this social emphasis back to evangelism is vital
for success. It is, however, spiritually disastrous. Lack of evangelism was not
the problem inherent in the old social gospel movement in the first place. The
problem was in adding something to the mission of the church that Christ did
not put there, thus poisoning the church itself.
Someone
may argue, ÒBut social justice is a good thing! How can it be poison?Ó It
matters not whether the element added is a good thing. Neither are altruistic
intentions of those adding them relevant. What matters is that anything is
added at all.
The
issue to God is not the moral value of the addition, but obedience pure and
simple. This means doing GodÕs work GodÕs way.
The
distorted historical perspective shines through nearly every bit of new social
gospel writings. Some even extoll Rauschenbusch, as a great forerunner of a
wonderful idea.[21]
The New
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology notes
that this liberal theologian Òadmitted
that his conception of the kingdom represented an effort to Christianize
Darwinist evolutionÉÓ[22]
Moreover, Rauschenbusch had Òno room in his theology for the
substitutionary atonement, a literal hell, or a literal second coming.Ó[23]
He was a bit weak in his doctrine of human corruption also, for he held to
a Ònearly utopian sense of human
potential.Ó[24]
It
is true the old social gospel lacked evangelism simply because liberals have no
gospel with which to evangelize. If Rauschenbusch were
wrong only at this basic level, is it unfair to ask if todayÕs social gospel
adherents see nothing wrong withÉ
á
defining the
kingdom of God as a just and equitable society before Jesus comes?
á
viewing Christ
as a social reformer who intended to establish a utopian society on earth but
failed?
á
considering the
early church, especially Paul, as having misunderstood the full content of the
gospel and the mission of the church?
All
these are views expounded thoroughly by Rauschenbusch. While the new advocates do not necessary hold to
these, we will see in the coming chapters how they skirt the edges of them.
Yes.
The new social gospel, like the old, is far more than a mere corrective to an
imbalance. It embodies misapplied premises and wrong hermeneutics. It contains just enough truth to seem credible and
enough error to be deadly. The danger lies in its system of logically coherent
and plausible sounding errors.
These
teachers do not conspire. They have a passion for people and for the gospel.
While endeavoring to exhort the church to love and good works, they have
unwittingly adopted half-truths leading to serious error. Result:
á
It deviates the
church from its biblical calling
á
It distorts the
gospel
á
It redefines
gospel ministry
á
It teaches a
false concept of the kingdom of God
á
It is a subtle
form of legalism
á
It distorts New
Testament teaching about church life as well as individual gifts and callings
The health of the church is at stake. If not kept in
check, this movement will dilute the power of the gospel and lead to spiritual
weakness.
Some scholars have attributed the spiritual and moral
decline of older denominations to the social gospel. This makes sense. If the
gospel is distorted and the mission of the church deviated, the Holy Spirit is
grieved and withdraws, leaving an empty shell, Christian in name only.
Once a person has adopted the new social gospel
mindset, he wears a lens that colors things in ways different than what the
apostles taught. It leads to a subtle legalism with the attendant judgmentalism.
A sense of guilt threatens our liberty of conscience.
The phrase social
gospel is anathema to most evangelicals because of its past association
with liberal theology. Promoters of the new version steer clear of the term,
even though the content is similar. TodayÕs version often attaches its views to
the coat tails of words perfectly appropriate if rightly used. These include holistic ministry, word and
deed, whole
gospel, cultural
mandate, missional, authenticating the gospel, contextualization, incarnational
ministry, etc.
This makes it confusing. We need to be alert when a
speaker uses such terms, to see if he is disguising social gospel theology with
otherwise benign elements.
In theology, we call this semantic manipulation; switching definitions without notice.
If it were merely a smattering of questionable
presuppositions, we would not bother. Nor would we bother were it a call for
more mercy ministry. It is far more than that. The new social gospel is a
theological system.
Some promoters of this current wave are outstanding
men of God with large ministries. We greatly respect the accomplishments of
such teachers and appreciate their evident anointing and valuable contribution
to Christian literature. We would not hesitate to sit under their preaching on
any biblical topic, except this one.
We intend nothing in this book to diminish the worth
or dignity of other duly ordained ministers. Nor do we wish them to endure
unnecessary theological potshots on secondary issues. We are not pointing a
small caliber rifle at weak spots in an otherwise good movement, in the hopes
that some of the annoyances will disappear. We are pointing a howitzer at an entire
system.
None of the writers we quote in this book, apart from
Rauschenbusch, are heretics. They affirm all the fundamentals of biblical
theology; the deity of Christ, the Trinity, salvation by grace, inerrancy of
scripture and final judgment. Nothing here is intended to question their
orthodoxy on any essential doctrine.
Some of those quoted in this book may not agree with
every premise of the movement and may disagree with statements from other
teachers in their own camp. It is a system
nevertheless and must be addressed as one.
Two camps
We can divide the movementÕs leaders into two camps:
Those who project the idea that mercy ministry is a part of the gospel versus those who see it as a consequence of the gospel. Richard
Stearns of World Vision would represent the former, while Steve Corbett of the
Chalmers Institute and Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York would
likely fit the latter.
Both camps nevertheless converge at the same point:
An indispensable part of the churches mission is to alleviate poverty in the
world and bring about a more just and equitable society as a manifestation of
the kingdom of God. This is a moral duty for all Christians, according to both
camps.
The new social gospel adherents would strongly
protest being called Ònew social gospel adherentsÓ on the sole grounds they are
otherwise conservative.
This puts us in a dilemma. On one hand, we wish to be
fair and kind to fellow conservatives attempting to work for God. On the other
hand, we must call them something in this book, so we are sticking with Ònew
social gospel teachersÓ because that label fits better than any we can find. There
is no attempt on our part to be derisive.
From our observation of the American evangelical
scene, the new social gospel is rampant. Some see it as a fresh view of
orthodoxy, a recovery of lost truths scarcely to be questioned.
WeÕre questioning it. This does not mean we question
the integrity, sincerity or worth of its proponents.
Most Christians who are gifted for mercy ministry
appear oblivious to theological questions. Few adhere to new social gospel thinking.
If they sound similar at times, it is usually because they view their ministry
as extremely important. They are right. Nothing in this book is intended to
discourage such zeal in particular gifts with ensuing ministries within the
Body of Christ.
From this
chapter we learnÉ
á
A rebirth of the
old social gospel is taking place under the guise of a new emphasis on mercy
ministry.
á
The new social
gospel is the old, repackaged to appeal to conservatives.
á
The new social
gospel is far more than a fresh call for involvement in mercy ministry. It is a
theological system of its own.
á
The new social
gospel views the old as defective only in its lack of evangelism and liberal
theology, not in its view of what is the gospel and the mission of the church.
á
The new is just
as spiritually dangerous as the old.
Chapter 3: WhatÕs It All About?
The new social gospel says evangelism and service to
the poor must be kept in balance. This is deemed the correct definition of
gospel ministry.
The peculiar thing about this is that some of its
foundation premises may be valid when rightly applied. Misapplied, they become
half-truths leading to a quasi-Christian worldview, harder to deal with than
outright heresy. ItÕs the gestalt phenomenon in which the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts. In this case, when the whole is assembled, it becomes
unholy.
The movement depends on the following premises:
A divine mandate exists, according to the proponents,
upon churches and individual Christians to serve the poor. This is GodÕs
strategy for world evangelism. Alleviation of world poverty is a central reason
for the Body of Christ to exist in this dispensation. Those who fail to
understand this are spiritually lacking, supposedly. (See Chapter Four)
The church exists as GodÕs partner
to establish a just and equitable society throughout the earth, according to
this teaching. Therefore the church has a mandate to fight for social justice,
economic equality and environmental improvements. Evangelism is a mere subset
of this process. (See Chapter Seven)
Most new social gospel teachers
agree this will be completed at the second coming. All assume it can and must
be accomplished in part, here and now.
According to this theology, Jesus committed himself
to the poor. Since he was our model, we should exhibit the same compassion by
feeding the poor, not just preaching the gospel. (See Chapter Six)
Christ came to establish the
kingdom of God on earth as a visible reality through a
renovated social order before his second coming. The church, they say, exists
for this purpose.
The old social gospel defined the
kingdom of God as the renovated human society to be
brought about by Christian activism. Though the new version correctly associates
the church with the kingdom of God, both link it with the renovated
social order to some degree.
Most agree this social revolution will be completed only when Christ
returns. All assert it must be accomplished in part, now. (See Chapter Five)
For the message of justification by faith alone to be
whole, it must include the message of
a new social order through meeting the physical needs of humanity. Without this,
the new social gospel teachers consider the gospel to be truncated or
incomplete. (See Chapter Eleven)
Some believe GodÕs goal is to
restore the whole of fallen creation to its state before the fall, not just the
people in it. The church has a mandate to work toward this as GodÕs partner,
here and now.
Foremost in this plan is redeeming the culture. Since Christians are in a
creation-restoration mission with God, it is imperative they also engage the culture with the arts, but in
a godly manner. This also is a part of the mission of the church, according to
the movement. (See Chapters 7 & 8)
Financial inequality between
classes of people and nations is an injustice, according to the some of the social
gospel literature. American Christians should feel guilty about their affluence
and therefore be at the forefront of efforts to rectify inequality in the
world.
Alleviation of poverty is central to the mission of
the church and part of the ministry of reconciliation of man to God. (See
Chapter Nine)
Part
of the driving force behind todayÕs new evangelical social gospel is a revival
of Kuyperianism, sometimes labeled Òneo-Calvinism.Ó
In 1898 a Dutch theologian
named Abraham Kuyper delivered a series of lectures at Princeton Seminary known
today as the Stone Lectures. In these, Kuyper elaborated the common grace doctrine,
a perfectly biblical idea that refers to GodÕs providential preservation of the
human race, with material blessings upon believers and unbelievers alike.
Kuyper rightly insisted the
Lordship of Christ must be brought to bear on every aspect of life. We need to avoid
separatism and engage the world around us. We must see Jesus as Lord of all, not
just of our ÒspiritualÓ life. This is the good half of KuyperÕs teaching.
The common grace doctrine is perfectly innocuous until someone decides
to exaggerate it, run it down a rabbit trail and impose it on others with his
own criteria about what the mission of the church should be. Therein lies the
rub.
From the common grace idea, Kuyper evolved the
notion of a cultural mandate. This
idea suggests there exists a mandate for the church, from Genesis One, to
overcome the worldÕs cultures and transform society. This includes social
justice causes, transforming political and social institutions, alleviating
suffering, participating in the arts and so forth.
The bad part is the way he
said we are to go about it. Kuyper put it on the foundation of this minor
doctrine, common grace. Since we are
all the image of God, believers and unbelievers alike, he claimed we can
embrace unbelievers as our co-workers toward bringing in the kingdom of God by
cooperative efforts in all the above-mentioned causes.
Why was this the bad part of
his thinking? The Bible says nothing about relating the gospel to the world on
the basis of common grace. The church must indeed engage the culture, but on other
grounds; the faithful preaching and teaching of the word of God. This includes
the uncompromising prophetic voice of the church in reproving, rebuking and
exhorting sinful cultures.
We find no cultural mandate
elaborated by the apostles as the means to victory. What we find is the Great
Commission as taught by Jesus, exemplified in the Book of Acts and explained in
the epistles.
It is significant that the
Stone Lectures, which Kuyper delivered over a period of six days, contain few
quotes from scripture. Theological speculation replaced sound scriptural
exegesis.
Reformed and Presbyterian
theologians grabbed KuyperÕs thinking and
elaborated it thoroughly. This is not surprising because within reformed circles
there can exist an annoying tendency to interpret the New Testament by the Old,
contrary to common sense. This may be how the cultural mandate idea, as defined
above, became unquestioned orthodoxy in some camps.
Kuyper was a product of his
time. He was born toward the end of the so-called ÒEnlightenment.Ó The industrial
age had started with amazing new inventions; steam engine, telegraph,
railroads. Things were beginning to look up for mankind. Who knows? Maybe with
the churchÕs help, Òthy kingdom comeÓ might be a prayer about to be answered.
World War I popped that
bubble. Kuyper died in 1920, before the other wars and horrors of the last
century. But the theological platform he built still exists with entire
denominations standing on it.
If circles could represent doctrines, some would be
larger than others. Salvation by grace alone would be a really big one and Christians
would have a right to require professing believers to stand within that circle.
We could rightly question the authenticity of their commitment to Christ were
they to refuse to do so.
The circle representing common grace would be very small by comparison. Since
Kuyper, some have taken this doctrine, stretched it to the size of a platform
and expect all believers to stand on it to show that their commitment to Christ
is authentic.
Moreover,
they have added a wide variety of elements to the platform; environmental
causes, social justice issues, alleviating poverty, trade imbalances, cultural
advancements and environmental causes. We also find unbelievers on the platform
with whom it is assumed we may cooperate to bring about GodÕs kingdom through whatever
cultural issues we may have in common.[25]
Things
get lost on that platform: The gospel itself, for example, along with the Great
Commission and the real mission of the church.
Overemphasis
on a right doctrine can sometimes be as damaging as a false one. The Bible
says,
á
God has a
benevolent attitude toward the human race in general. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appearedÉ Titus 3:4. The term love of God is actually one Greek word, filanthropia, and implies benevolence.
á
God preserves
the human race from extinction. É the
living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
1Tim. 4:10
á
God provides sustenance
of the human race. He causes his sun to
rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the
unrighteous. Mt. 5:45
á
God provides good
times, like harvest festivals. GodÕs benevolence even provides fun. Yet he has not left himself without
testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in
their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with
joy. Acts 14:17
From these, we
see the purpose of GodÕs common grace is twofold: preservation of the race and
revelation of GodÕs existence. ThatÕs it. Nothing about social
justice, feeding the poor or any cultural
mandate on the church.
Does the common grace concept have any
evangelistic use? Yes, if we use it rightly. Paul used it with the
Thessalonians when he said,
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he
commands all people everywhere to repent.
31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the
man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from
the dead. Acts 17:30-31
PaulÕs diplomatic message, put
another way, really meant, ÒtimeÕs up, guys! God has had enough of your
idolatrous and pagan culture and his patience has run out. Now it is time to
repent because heÕs about to hold you to account for your ways.Ó
This
is how Paul engaged the culture.
Around the
same time as Kuyper, along came Rauschenbusch whom we mentioned before as leader
of the old social gospel in the U.S.
Rauschenbusch
had legitimate concerns. He lived at the beginning of the industrial revolution
in the last half of the 19th century and saw the abuses of unregulated
capitalism. This led him to adopt socialism as a socio-political philosophy and
combine its fundamental premises with what was left of Christianity in his
liberal theology.
The result
was a series of false premises nearly identical to those mentioned above.
Rauschenbusch felt that economic inequality is an ipso facto evil, proof that injustice has taken place. Since
it is the role of the church to deal with ethical issues, then Christians must
be at the forefront of social justice causes. Jesus came to establish the
kingdom of God as a just and equitable society and left it to the church to
complete that. The church exists for this purpose.
As we shall
see in the following chapters, all these premises are half-truths and therefore
misleading.
Fast forward
to the present day. The recipe is simple. Add an overdose of common grace to
the old social gospel premises, sprinkle with passionate rhetoric, stir briskly
and bake in the heat of current political and social frustrations among Christians.
Out pops the new social gospel. Package with pretty labels and serve freely.
The problem
is that the new recipe is just as poisonous as the old.
In the next chapters, we will see why the above
premises are junk theology bordering on heresy and will launch the church on a
trajectory that is ultimately fruitless.
To see this better, we need to review a principle of
hermeneutics, the science of scripture interpretation. One key
aspect will expose the door through which these errors have entered.
From this
chapter we learnÉ
á
The new social
gospel depends on a series of half-truths as foundation premises.
á
These premises,
when assembled together, form a dangerously convincing system of wrong
theology.
Chapter 4: Bizarre Interpretations
During
our acquaintance with some Pentecostal believers, we were told about the Òfull
gospel.Ó They said divine healing is included in the definition of the gospel
message. Christ died to save bodies
as well as souls.
To
preach the gospel, means telling people they can be saved spiritually and healed
physically through Christ, they said. Both are guaranteed through the same
faith in Jesus, according their interpretation of certain verses.
This
appeared to make sense at first because it was an obvious balance between the
physical and spiritual.
Like
social gospel adherents, they referred to texts showing ChristÕs sacrifice
included the physical creation. For them, it followed logically that healing
was guaranteed if only we were faithful and obedient.
It
sounded supremely positive and hopeful. Why it didnÕt work all the time was explained
as unbelief. This struck us as simplistic and unrealistic.
What
does this have to do with the new social gospel? Similar hermeneutical errors
are involved. Instead of adding healing to the gospel, the new social gospel
adds mercy ministry. Instead of
Òfull gospel,Ó they say Òholistic.Ó
A
more solid reason why we rejected the Pentecostal definitions of gospel and
gospel ministry is because of the way the apostles defined these terms. In
PaulÕs thorough dissertation on the gospel in Romans and Galatians he makes no
mention of physical healing as a part of the definition.
This
would be a drastic oversight if physical healing were included in the meaning
of these terms.
We
concluded therefore that PaulÕs definitions lack nothing. From the book of Acts
we see divine healing as one of those signs
that may accompany the preaching of the gospel as God grants them. Likewise with
mercy ministry.
As do
our full gospel friends, the new
social gospel adherents view those who differ through their own special lens.
It is insinuated that those who disagree,
á
Are spiritually
shallow.
á
Lack a full
understanding of GodÕs redemptive plan.
á
Lack compassion
for the poor and social justice issues.
á
Are stuck in
traditional thinking.
á
Are not
progressive.
Justification
by faith alone, in Christ alone, is the whole
gospel. Nothing else is. Whatever gets added, however
innocuous or marvelous, results in legalism. Another form of legalism is
exactly what the new social gospel is.
The
Bible is a chronological book, an unfolding revelation, starting with the
Pentateuch and ending with the Epistles and Revelation. Since it is
progressive, it follows logically that the latter must interpret the former.
This
means the New Testament interprets the Old, not vice versa. The Old Testament
means what the New says it does and no more. We are free to bring into the Christian
life teachings from the Old Testament that the New authorizes.
Likewise, within the New Testament itself. the
epistles are the gospels and Acts explained and applied. They are the final
word on what Christian living is like and what the church is to do. This is
called the progressive revelation principle.
The New Testament leans heavily toward a new freedom
within broad parameters. So it is with mercy ministry, social justice and the
relationship of the church to the world. Looking back to the Old Testament
rather than forward to the epistles can get us into trouble when coming to
conclusions about our duties within the Great Commission.
From
the gospels we learn what it means to be Christ like. Then the epistles explain
how to work it out in practice. The gospels are the theory, the epistles the
practice. If we stayed in the gospels alone, we might lack discipline in the
church and finesse in our theology.
Suppose
a sinning Christian in the church refuses to repent. Without teaching from the
epistles on discipline, immature members might cavil that we are judgmental,
using ChristÕs acceptance of sinners to avoid applying discipline. They might
fall into the Corinthian error of doing nothing on the grounds of tolerance.
The
progressive nature of the Bible has a filter effect. ItÕs obvious the New
Testament filters out a lot in the Old. Complications enter when parts of a
principle are filtered out but not all.
Sometimes
what gets filtered is the emphasis. A principle in the Old Testament might be
valid in the New for different reasons and without the same emphasis. The most
dangerous errors are often simply a matter of emphasis.
An
example might be dietary laws. In the New Testament we are free to eat
anything, though not anywhere in front of just anybody. Some restrictions apply
having to do with personal discipline and the conscience of others.
In
the following chapters, we will see how the new social gospel violates the
progressive revelation principle
at every turn. This leads to errors of emphasis at best and downright false
doctrine at worst.
From this chapter we learnÉ
á
Justification by
faith is the whole gospel and nothing else is.
á
Any addition to
this definition of the gospel leads inevitably to legalism with the attendant judgmentalism.
á
The new social
gospel violates an important principle of biblical interpretation, the progressive revelation principle.
á
The movement
views detractors as spiritually weak and lacking in vision and compassion for
humanity.
Chapter 5: The Mission of Jesus
The
fundamental purpose of Jesus was the establishment of the kingdom of God, which
involved a thorough regeneration and reconstitution of social life.[26]
So
declares Rauschenbusch, the leading exponent of the old social gospel. By regeneration he does not mean born again. He means a social revolution that
gradually transforms human existence into a just and equitable society, here
and now, in visible form.
For
Rauschenbusch, this alone was the mission of Christ.[27]
He continues,
The
kingdom of God is still a collective conception, involving the whole social
life of man.[28]
All
branches of Christianity agree Jesus came to establish the kingdom of God.
Christ talked about it as a central theme of his parables.
The
question is, what does the term kingdom
of God mean? How is it to be established? What is the churchÕs role in
bringing it about and when will it become visible?
From
the President of World Vision, Richard Stearns,
ChristÕs
proclamation of the Òkingdom of heavenÓ was a call for a redeemed world order
populated by redeemed people—now.[29]
God
established the institution of the Church as a key strategy for building His
kingdom and for leading the social revolution required
by the gospelÉ.[30]
His
gospel encompassed not only the forgiveness of sins and the saving of our souls
but also the fullness of the coming kingdom of God through a society
transformed by His followers.[31]
Harvey Conn, Professor, Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia,
Let
people know that by giving their allegiance to Christ they will be embarking on
a great campaign to banish war and poverty and injusticeÉ Let people know that
the church that sends out this manifesto plans to be an advance copy of the new
world order it preaches.[32]
p. 56
Through
JesusÕ compassion they [the oppressed] begin to taste the power of the new day
that has come, the restoration of society that God their only kinsman has begun
to give. From the lower brackets of society, they are lifted up by JesusÕ regal
power to the edge of the kingdom and GodÕs new just order for the Creation.[33]p.
46
Tim
Keller, Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, New York,
The
kingdom is the renewal of the whole world through the entrance of supernatural
forces. As things are brought back under ChristÕs rule and authority, they are
restored to health, beauty and freedom.[34]
The
purpose of the church on earth, according to the above, is to create a just and
equitable new world order.
Do
you see the difference on this point between the old liberal social gospel and
the new? Neither do we.
The
only notable difference is that the old defines the kingdom as the worldwide
social order itself. The new avoids this error and agrees the kingdom of God is
the church, although both converge at the same point. They assume the church is
the means by which Christ intends to create the society envisioned.
The
new differs little from the old in its view of ChristÕs mission. Buckley &
Dobson assert Christ
came É to conquer the issues of global
poverty, hunger, sickness, injustice, and oppression.[35]
The
new social gospel view of ChristÕs mission can be summarized in these points:
á
The mission of
Christ was to establish the kingdom of God.
á
The kingdom of
God consists not only of the church but also a new social order.
á
The churchÕs
purpose is to complete the mission of Christ by establishing a just and
equitable society at least in part, before Jesus comes.
Jesus
threw a monkey wrench into the culture of his day when he said,
The
kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people
say, ÔHere it is,Õ or ÔThere it
is,Õ because the kingdom of God is within you.
Luke
17:20-21
This
declaration must have stunned the Pharisees. They assumed national Israel was
GodÕs kingdom, with themselves as the pinnacle through their devotion to the
Law. The general population was ignorant rabble in their thinking and hardly
counted. When the Messiah came, Israel would become a military power and
therefore make the kingdom fully visible.
Jesus
contradicted the entire Jewish expectation. In the eyes of the Pharisees, Jesus
had disqualified himself from the office of Messiah.
Notice
how Jesus did not actually forbid anyone to say, ÒLook! I found the kingdom!
Here it is!Ó He simply predicts no one will be able to say that for the simple
reason it will not be visible enough to
say it. So, any who make such declarations are mistaken.
Yet
it is a kingdom and does exist here and now. ÉThe kingdom of God is within you.
The
Greek text for within you is
wonderfully ambiguous because it could mean among
you or also in you, in the sense
of inside a person. The kingdom is first an internal individual relationship
with God, then the sum of all such individuals scattered throughout society.
Another
quote of Jesus reveals the error of assuming a visible kingdom in this
dispensation.
My
kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my
arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place. John 18:36
To
Pilate, Jesus exposed three vital aspects of GodÕs kingdom. The headquarters is
not on earth. It consists of his disciples. Those disciples are not allowed to
fight to make it visible.
Although
it is not visible, Jesus commanded us to pray it would become so. Éyour kingdom
come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Mt.6:10
The
time will come when these prayers will be answered. This will occur at his
second coming.
The
apostles understood this very well. We see nothing from the pen of Paul about
the kingdom as a social order at large, nor the church existing to create one.
He would surely have tacked on an amendment to his commendation to the
Thessalonians were that the case.
The
LordÕs message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia — your
faith in God has become known everywhere. 1Thess.1:8
We
would have expected Paul to say, Ònow that you have done the first stage, the
second is to bring society into line.Ó
Notice
Paul says, Éwho calls you into his kingdom and glory. 1Thess.2:12
Then in 2Thess.1:5, he adds the future tense, É you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God. This does not
fit well with the kingdom now
thinking of the new social gospel.
A
balance indeed existed in PaulÕs ministry but not between evangelism and the
establishment of social justice. The balance was between evangelism and the
perfecting of those brought into Christ through the gospel.
No
teaching from any apostle shows him identifying the kingdom of God with a new
social order before Jesus comes, whether in whole or in part. In this sense, it
matters little whether the church or the society is the kingdom, nor to what
degree society will be renovated. The whole idea is blatantly false.
The
Apostle John shows us that the kingdom is not a tool for another purpose. It is
an end in itself.
ÒCome,
I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.Ó 10 And he carried me away in
the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City,
Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. Rev.21:9,10 Then the
angel said to me, ÒWrite: ÔBlessed are those who are invited to
the wedding supper of the Lamb!ÕÓ Rev.19:9
A
bride for Christ, the church, is the goal. This bride exists in two parts for
the moment; one part on earth and the other in heaven in the form of believers
who have gone before us.[36]
When Jesus comes he will bring the saints with him and the two parts will be
united.
É
and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep
in him. 1Thess. 4:14
The
purpose of the gospel is to complete the bride of Christ, not create a new
social order for the rest of humanity.
Benefiting
society is a natural byproduct of the gospel. Assuming this is the reason behind it is a big mistake.
Such
talk deeply offends the humanistic mindset of our time. Humanism assumes Òman
is the measure of all thingsÓ[37]
and therefore the value of any movement is measurable by the benefits it brings
to mankind.
All
new social gospel advocates would adamantly repudiate the notion that man is
the measure of all things. Would they be willing to repudiate with equal
vehemence the liberal view that the gospel takes its value from its benefits to
mankind?
Some
have bought into the popular cultural mindset without its fundamental premise.
This is why in one the quotes above, the writer encourages Christians to let
people know that with allegiance to Christ they will be embarking on a campaign
for a new world order.[38]
Is this an evangelistic device the apostles used?
Our blessed hope is no longer the glorious appearing of our Lord and savior
Jesus Christ,[39]
but also a society transformed by his
followers,[40]
a world restored to health, beauty and
freedom.[41]
We are not kingdom
builders
A
quote from Kevin DeYoung in his book Why We Love the
Church, puts it so well, no further comment is necessary:
Similarly,
there is no language in Scripture about Christians building the kingdom. The
New Testament, in talking about the kingdom, uses words like enter, seek,
announce, see, receive, look, come into, and inheritÉ We testify about it, pray
for it to come, and by faith, it belongs to us. But in the New Testament, we
are never the ones who bring the kingdom. We receive it, enter it, and are
given it as a gift. It is our inheritance.
The
kingdom grows to be sure, and no doubt God causes it to grow by employing means
(like Christians), but we are never told to create, expand, or usher in the
kingdom just as the Israelites were not commanded to establish Canaan. Pray for
the kingdom, yes, but not build it. [42]
In
the context, DeYoung is referring to popular kingdom-now theology and is not
excluding our role in making disciples and building up the church.
Misidentifying
the kingdom of God has serious consequences. The most obvious is deviating
resources into endeavors for which the church is neither called nor equipped.
Some
believers may be called to fight for social justice or alleviate poverty, since
mercy ministry is one of the gifts of the Spirit. Yet these are not the reason
why the invisible church is here.
It
has a mission and a powerful tool to accomplish it. Making disciples of all
nations is the goal and the tool is the word of God, plus nothing.
From this chapter we learnÉ
á
All Christians
agree the mission of Jesus was to establish the kingdom of God on earth.
á
The old social
gospel defined the kingdom of God as a just and equitable society.
á
The new social
gospel correctly defines the kingdom of God as the church but considers its
mission to establish an equitable society at least in part, before Jesus
returns.
á
The teaching of
Jesus and the apostles show such a definition to be incorrect.
Was
Jesus our model in feeding the poor? Social gospel teachers past and present
answer an emphatic yes.
According
to Buckley & Dobson, JesusÉcame to
conquer the issues of global poverty, hunger, sickness and injustice...[43]
A
central theme of the new social gospel is that Jesus was our model in
ministering to the poor and so the church has a duty to devote itself to the
alleviation of poverty.[44] The assumption is that Jesus fed them
and therefore we should also.
The
argument goes like this:
Jesus showed compassion on
the poor.
He was our model.
Therefore we have a mandate
to show compassion on the poor by alleviating their poverty by feeding them.
The
Chalmers Institute[45]
projects this reasoning throughout the first two chapters of their book as a
given and persistently calls it a Òmandate.Ó [46]
This
syllogism is fine, until we add the part about feeding the poor. That is called
a non sequiturÉthe conclusion does
not follow.
Maybe.
If he did, we have no record of it. Knowing his character, we would expect him
to give food to the poor if he had any. Since Jesus was poor himself, we would
need to ask with what would he feed them.
What
about the feeding of the five thousand? Is this proof Jesus fed the poor?
No.
Those people were not poor. Jesus said, send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and
buy themselves some food.[47]They
were ordinary people from the surrounding towns on a singular excursion. Jesus
knew they had means to buy food.
Neither
this nor any other New Testament text is proof of a biblical mandate to
alleviate world poverty.
How
did Jesus show compassion on the poor? By healing them of their diseases. But
then, he healed them because they were sick, not because they were poor.
The
economic question is never an issue in the healing stories. Sick people are
often poor because they cannot work. So in a crowd of common people, one would
find individuals who are both sick and poor.
Not
so in the case of the centurionÕs servant[48]
or JairusÕ daughter.[49]
These were not poor.
This
leads us to a stunning conclusion: Jesus did not commit himself to serving the
poor in particular.
Jesus
met the needs of people as he encountered them in the ordinary course of life,
with apparent disregard of social status, economic condition, religious or
non-religious. Sometimes crowds, sometimes individuals.
If
they were sick, he healed them. If they were legalists, he rebuked them. If
they were confused, he taught them. If they were lost, he led them. When it
comes to categories, it is difficult to pinpoint JesusÕ focus to any one human
condition.
Did
Jesus give alms to the poor as a regular practice? Not personally. We have no
record of him carrying money himself. There was a common purse and we know he
directed his disciples to practice alms giving because it was a part of Jewish
law.[50]
In
the Sermon on the Mount Jesus made it clear he did not come to remove anything
from the Law but to fulfill it. Since he fulfilled the Law during his life,
taking nothing away from it, we would assume he kept that one as well.
Why
this particular law must be transferred to the church as a mandate, without
transferring over the rest of the law, is a bit hard to square with PaulÕs
epistles. Making it into a biblical
mandate as the strategy for world
evangelism is even harder to prove.
Sort
of and sort of not.
His
ministry was miraculous. He healed people. Even if we were to take the 5000 as
feeding poor folk, he fed them by multiplying bread supernaturally. He did this
at will.
Are
we able to do this? Miracles may certainly occur but not at our own discretion.
In
following Jesus as our model of compassion on humanity, it would seem to make
more sense to hold large healing outreaches than mass poverty alleviation
programs.
We
have no clear record of any intentionality on the part of Jesus to commit
himself to the poor. Rather, he seemed committed to mankind as a whole, of
which the poor are a part.
It
would be interesting to compare how much time he spent in the temple, how much
with the rich, religious or non-religious. We already know what he spent most
of his time doing. It was preaching and teaching. This is what humanity needs.
In
some things yes, others, no. He was truly our model in his compassion; not our
model in the way we go about it.
At
the end of his ministry Jesus gave us his mandate on how to carry out his
mission and show compassion on humanity.
He
said to them, Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
Mark 16:15
This
is the Great Commission and
nothing else is. Though we would not let a destitute person starve when we
encounter one, neither would we call feeding that person the Great Commission.
The
notion that Jesus is our model in feeding the poor is sheer fiction.
From this chapter we learnÉ
á
The new social
gospel claims Jesus was our model in focusing his ministry on the poor. This
assumes we have a mandate to alleviate poverty in the community and in the
world.
á
No record exists
of Jesus feeding the poor nor commanding his disciples to do so as a mandate.
á
Jesus showed
compassion on people in general as he met them. The question of poverty is a non-issue.
Chapter 7: The Creation Mandate
What about Planet Earth itself? According to some new social
gospel advocates only redemption of people is in view, but the redemption of
creation is part of our mission.
The new social gospel frequently uses the terms redemption and restoration interchangeably.
God
is redeeming people, but he is also redeeming creation, which is outright
groaning for its restoration. When the Christian enacts social justice for the
glory of God, he is engaging in acts É pointing to the Christ-shaped path back
to the Garden. (Jared Wilson, Gospel Driven Church)[51]
From the Cardus Institute,
The
Word became flesh, not to save our souls from this fallen world, but in order
to restore us as lovers of this world—to (re)enable us to carry out that
creative commission. Indeed, God saves us so that—once again, in a kind
of divine madness—we can save the world, can (re)make the world aright.
And GodÕs redemptive love spills over in its cosmic effects, giving hope to
this groaning creation. (James K. Smith, Cardus Institute)[52]
The
new social gospel teachers justify this thinking by a mandate given to Adam in
the garden.
God blessed them and said to
them, ÒBe fruitful and increase in
number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the
birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.Ó Gen.
1:28
According
to this verse, God gave Adam two things: An identity and a job.
His
identity was image of God. His job was caretaker of the earth.
27 So God created man in his
own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
In theology, this is called the creation mandate or sometimes, the dominion mandate.
When the fall took place, Adam did not lose his identity.
Neither did he get a new job description. The fall simply made his job harder.
Cursed is the ground because
of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles
for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will
eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were takenÉ
Gen.3:17-19
This made it hard on his descendants also. We inherited not
only his corruption but also his job description. Though the physical creation
fell under a curse at that time, we are still obliged to do something about it.
Right here enters another social gospel half-truth. It is
true we are still the image of God and caretakers of the earth. The question is
what has God commanded us to do in this dispensation about the caretaker part? The new social gospel asserts,
The Bible teaches us that
God is not only redeeming his people, but is also restoring the whole creation.
(From An Evangelical
Call to Civic Responsibility)[53]
The new social gospel view is that Christ came as GodÕs
emissary to restore the original creation. The salvation of souls and the
formation of the church is only a subset of this plan.[54]
We are to be as actively involved in restoring the physical creation as in
saving souls, according to this theology.
Nothing is wrong with most of the above interpretation of
Genesis 1:28. ItÕs the last step that does not follow from the premise.
Indeed we are. The error resides in confusing the different
ways a partnership works.
One way is like two guys moving a log. Since the log
is too heavy for one man, they both pick up their end and move it. Both are
doing the same job at the same time and in the same way.
Another is like landscaping. One agrees to mow the
lawn and the other plants the flowers. Both are working on the same project but
in totally different ways.
So it is with GodÕs plan for his creation. Our part
is to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations. This is the Great
Commission, which is our job plus nothing. If there were more,
it would be included in the Great Commission or in the instructions of the
apostles.
Here again is another leap. New social gospel
teachers take an Old Testament text, insert their own theology, leap over the
New Testament filter, and impose it on the church as a mandate. Big mistake!
We will see in the next chapter how God will do his
part.
The creation mandate supposedly includes environmental
activism as part of the churchÕs mission. From Rusty Prichard, Flourish
Ministries, we read,
It goes back to the Great
Commission. ...WeÕre to teach people to observe everything God
has commandedÉshowing the world that we are actually serious about the
commandments of God.[55]
He adds,
We need to more clearly
connect evangelism with environmental care. We do this because Jesus is Lord,
because Jesus in His work on the cross has reconciled all things to Himself (Colossians
1)[56]
When these teachers try to justify their thinking from the
New Testament, they usually quote from Colossians 1:20. This verse supposedly
associates the redemption of the creation with the atonement of Christ.
ÉAnd through him to
reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven,
by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Col. 1:20
The
new social gospel teachers invariable interpret this to mean Christ died to
redeem not only fallen people but also the physical creation. This
interpretation has some weight because the term all things is used four times in the previous verses and refers to
the lordship of Christ over all creation.
Let
us assume their interpretation is correct and ChristÕs death indeed redeems all of creation. Why does it
follow that it is a part of the mission of the church to produce that in this
present age?
The
resurrection of the dead is also included in the restoration of creation. (Rom.
8: 20,21)
Some
new social gospel advocates seem to understand this part of ChristÕs redemption
will take place at the end of the age when God establishes a new heaven and a
new earth. This keeps them within the bounds of traditional theology.
This,
however, is not the intent in Colossians.
In
the context, Gentile believers are now part of GodÕs kingdom along with the Jewish
saints who went before. É[God] has
qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of
light. Col.1:12
As full members of the Body of
Christ, not mere Gentiles, these Colossians share in the same kingdom and same Body
of Christ as their Jewish predecessors.
This was a key issue in the New Testament from the Jewish
perspective. The apostles were always struggling to make sure not only Jewish
believers understood it but also gentile converts would not feel like second-class
citizens in GodÕs kingdom.
There
was indeed a separation caused by the fall that must be reconciled though it is
not really the fallen creation in view here. Even less is Paul implying that evangelism
is a mere subset of the total picture. It is no subset.[57]
This text is similar to Heb. 11:40, God had planned something better for us so that only together with us
would they be made perfect.
The
key division in the context is between the saved who have gone before and those
of us still on earth.
Christ
is going to join these two bodies into one, the living and the dead, Jew
and Gentile. He will do this because of his supremacy over all creation. The
point at issue is the unity of his body, not a creation-restoration mission.
Finally,
the text contains no commands for Christians or mandates to the church. It
simply describes who Jesus is and what he is able to do. Leaping from that to a
creation-restoring mission is a leap indeed.
The
whole creation is going to have to wait a while for its redemption. We come
first.
(Rom.
8:19-21)
It
is redemption of people in view here, not the redemption of a material
creation. The creation is restored, not redeemed, because the physical planet
is not a sinner. Christ is able to do this because he is Lord of all, including
the world of Gentiles. This and nothing more, is PaulÕs intent.
Is God currently redeeming the physical creation? No
he is not. This is for the future and it is not a process.
The
creation mandate idea is
sufficient grounds for a lot of things,
á
For keeping our house clean, that is, planet earth.
á
For expressing
creative gifts God gives us.
á
For being nice
to our pets.
It
is not sufficient grounds for adding these to the gospel message, making it
incumbent upon the church to lead the world in environmental causes or
establishing a just and equitable society. If it were, the apostles would have
said so.
From this
chapter we learnÉ
á
The notion of
the redemption of the material creation for the present is unbiblical.
á
We are in
partnership with God for the whole redemption scenario but our part is to
preach the gospel.
Chapter 8: The Cultural Mandate
The cultural mandate is a subset of the
creation mandate having to
do with the development of human cultures in their art forms, languages and
customs. This supposedly means God commanded mankind to develop culturesÉas
though we would fail to do that without a command.
More
importantly, the new social gospel tells us it is part of the mission of the
church to Christianize all cultures in this dispensation through non-violent
means. Thus, the biblical mandate has
two parts: the creation mandate, which is domination of the physical planet and the
cultural mandate, overcoming for Christ the cultures mankind creates. Sometimes
the whole package is called the dominion
mandate.
Doing
all that will supposedly manifest the kingdom of God on earth, in large part,
before Christ comes.
The cultural mandate is a centerpiece of all
new social gospel theology because of its supposed link to the creation mandate and
its association with the kingdom of God.
Redemption is the re-orientation and re-direction of our culture-making
capacities.
(James K. Smith, Cardus Institute) [58]
We
must engage with the entire creation, including culture, for our Creator is
deeply engaged with it.
(Corbett & Fikkert, Chalmers Institute)[59]
Quotes like these typify the mindset of this movement.
It contains two false premises:
á
God is in the
process of redeeming the physical creation, which logically must include human
cultures.
á
It is part of Christian
duty to help God in this process by engaging in social justice enterprises and
cultural activities.
These
affirmations are serious since no such thing is taught in the New Testament.
We
could write off such theology as a bit weird and ignore it, were it not so
loudly affirmed by key players today. It gets stranger still when we are told
that Christ is sustaining and supporting all human cultures and working in
them.
Christ
is the Creator and Sustainer of more than just the material world. É Christ is
actively engaged in sustaining the economic, social, political, and religious
systems in which humans live. (Corbett & Fikkert, Chalmers Institute) [60]
This
idea is like catching smoke and is not much clearer in the liberal theologians
from which was derived.[61]
It may be due to confusing the difference between divine providence and divine
approval.
The Cardus
Institute,[62]
a self-styled think tank of Christians committed to changing the culture, says,
While the church is that people who have been
regenerated and empowered by the Spirit to do the good work of culture-making,
foretastes of the coming kingdom are not confined to the church. The Spirit is
profligate in spreading seeds of hope. So we gobble up foretastes of the
kingdom wherever we can find them. The creating, redeeming God of Scripture
takes delight in Jewish literature that taps the deep recesses of language's
potential, in Muslim commerce that runs with the grain of the universe, and in
the well-ordered marriages of agnostics and atheists. We, too, can follow God's
lead and celebrate the same.[63]
Christ
is indeed sustaining non-Christian cultures though perhaps for another reason.
Éthe
Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for
the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. 2Pet.2:9
Sustaining,
yes. For their benefit, not necessarily. GodÕs common grace keeps
these cultures in existence for other reasons than for us to rejoice in what
they are.
Does
this mean Christians can ignore cultural issues? Are we more spiritual if we
disregard the arts?
We
live in a house. We keep it tidy because no normal person wants to live in filth.
On the wall may be art, and a Mozart minuet playing in the background. None of
these elements are part of our mission in life nor constitute a balance in our
calling. Neither will we hear a reproach from God if we fail to incorporate
them.
So it
is with the church. Christians are free to engage in the arts and culture as
they wish and may be gifted in these areas. They are also free to disengage
from such if they so choose. Those things are gifts from God, not mandates. Christians
are not free, however, to ignore evangelism as their mission.
Keeping
this in mind helps us see why the so-called cultural or creation mandate is not
part of the gospel, or of gospel ministry, and attempting to make it a mandate is an affront to our liberty of
conscience.
When
it comes to the cultural mandate concept, it is hard to find a better example
of reading into the scriptures what is not there. This is, eisegesis at its best, reading into the text something from oneÕs
own fertile imagination. This is the opposite of exegesis, which is the correct way of extracting the evident
meaning of a biblical text.
Social
gospel teachers of all stamps take Gen.1:28, load it with their own made-up
theology and stuff it into the Great Commission. Is this really warranted?
Again
the principle of progressive revelation comes in handy. If the cultural
mandate, as defined by these teachers, were a central part of the churchÕs
mission, an equal balance in gospel ministry, then why do the apostles seem to
be unaware of it? Their cultural concern seemed to be limited to making sure
the gentiles were included in GodÕs kingdom.
The new social gospel has taken this cultural mandate
idea and run with it. Some of the ways they have done so, sounds like a good
plot for a sci-fi film. Fun to think about but not reality.
Kevin DeYoung summarizes it beautifully:
We need to be careful about our language. I think I
know what people mean when they talk about redeeming the culture or partnering
with God in His redemption of the world, but we should really pick another
word. Redemption has already been accomplished on the cross. We are not
co-redeemers of anything. We are called to serve, bear witness, proclaim, love,
do good to everyone, and adorn the gospel with good deeds, but we are not
partners in GodÕs work of redemption. [64]
In
context, DeYoung means we are not GodÕs partners in redeeming the material
creation.
There indeed exists in the Great Commission a certain
cultural mandate, not to the extent the new social gospel proposes. When Jesus
said, make disciples of all nations, he
did not mean win a few souls in every country and plant some churches. He meant
Christianize all ethnic groups. In this sense we can agree with the cultural
mandate.
The problem is in the means to the end. The only
means Christ ever authorized for the spread of his kingdom was to preach and
teach the gospel. There is nothing about taking over the culture in general via
mercy ministry, art forms, socio-political agitation or anything else.
Preaching and teaching are the means, the only means,
and the apostles showed they understood this by the way they modeled it in the
book of Acts and discussed it in the epistles. This is gospel ministry. Nothing
else is.
From this
chapter we learnÉ
á
The cultural
mandate idea, as elaborated by the new social gospel movement, is fantasy.
á
The cultural
mandate concept supposedly claims there exists on the church a mandate to
engage society in cultural issues.
á
The cultural
mandate concept seems to have its roots in a Dutch theologian who elaborated it
out of the common grace idea.
Chapter 9: Redeeming the Creation
But
the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a
roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in
it will be laid bareÉ. and the elements will melt in the heat. 2Pet. 3:10
In
the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens
are the work of your hands. 11 They
will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. 12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed. Heb.1:10-12
ItÕs
called a scorched earth policy. Jesus is going to look at the universe and say,
ok, that garment has served its purpose. ItÕs time for a new set of clothes.
This
includes every culture and all its contents. Bye-bye Beethoven. Sayonara Madam
Butterfly. The bell will toll for thee, Hemingway.
We
love the arts. A twinge of pain grips us when thinking the sound of poof will be the final note of the Ninth
Symphony.
Even
more annoying is the realization that our own paltry contributions will go up
in smoke. This is emotive only, for we know these will be replaced with a glory
that will make every culture seem juvenile in comparison.
Our
current cultures are a childÕs first scribbling. Does this mean they have no
value? They are of great value, indeed. Some parents preserve a childÕs
drawings long after the youngster loses interest in them. For that is what our
cultures are, compared with the glory to come.
So,
weÕre not entirely sure the Father will throw them all away. It is not our
current mission, however, to preserve them.
Redeeming the culture is certainly not part of any
balance in the New Testament. It is barely in the ballpark. Though it is indeed
in the ballpark, it is not in a balance with the gospel.
ItÕs like polishing our shoes. ItÕs something we must
do. WeÕre not out to show off our shoes however, nor prove ours are as good as
others. WeÕre on a mission.
Redeem the culture? ThatÕs fine. LetÕs remember, though, that our mission is the redemption of the elect.
The creation redemption idea is logically
linked to a particular view of end time prophecy. That view is called
Postmillennialism. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says, É
Épostmillennialists
emphasize the present aspects of GodÕs kingdom, which will reach fruition in
the future. They believe that the millennium will come through Christian
preaching and teaching. Such activity will result in a more godly, peaceful,
and prosperous world. ÉDuring the new age the church will assume greater
importance, and many economic, social, and educational problems can be solved.
ÉThe period is not necessarily limited to a thousand years because the number
can be used symbolically. The millennium closes with the second coming of
ChristÉ [65]
The
entire kingdom perspective of the new
social gospel is, at its root, postmillennial. This puts the adherents in a
dilemma. They cannot in one breath tell us we have liberty of conscience in our
eschatology, then declare us truncated, weak or failing in our vision of GodÕs
purposes in history.
By
imposing the one, they imply the other. If social restoration is the mission of
the church today, then postmillennialism is the
only logical option. If we cannot accept postmillennialism, there is no need
for the new social gospel.
We
have no quarrel with anyone holding a postmillennial view.
End-time prophecy is a tough subject. If a person can read the book of
Revelation and declare the world is going to get better before Jesus comes, we
will not argue with him. We will only encourage him to be consistent and become
an advocate of the social gospel. Though we may disagree with him on both
counts, at least we respect his consistency.
Likewise,
we would encourage him to be open about both and not use the one to disguise
the other. Either we accept the whole package or none of it. If the new social
gospel is correct, so is postmillennialism.
LetÕs
not kid ourselves nor let others kid us. Postmillennialism is an unspoken
driving force behind the theology of the new social gospel. Once
postmillennialism is
accepted, the social gospel follows. The two are co-dependent.
The
new social gospel advocates are not free, therefore, to tell the church its
conscience must be bound to their kingdom
perspective and not bound to the eschatology to which it leads. They may
indeed say this, or even believe it themselves, but do so irrationally and
unfairly.
From this chapter we learnÉ
á
God will not
restore this current creation. He will destroy it entirely and replace it with
a new heaven and a new earth.
á
The
creation-restoration theology of the new social gospel movement, as they define
it, is absurd.
á
Postmillennial
eschatology is logically linked to new social gospel theory.
A
young lady, professing faith in Christ although still living in fornication,
was applying for church membership.
ÒCan
you imagine?Ó the pastor exclaimed. ÒOne of our church elders was passing
judgment on that girl although he himself has two LexusÕ in his driveway!Ó He
paused for effect, evidently expecting the large audience to respond aghast.
Most of us did not respond at all, so he repeated the illustration with greater
detail, having assumed we misunderstood.
We
were waiting for a punch line. We saw nothing wrong with an elder suggesting
the church board postpone receiving into membership a young lady living in
fornication. What the two LexusÕ had to do with it was lost on us.
Not
lost on the pastor, though. For him, wealth mitigated the right to evaluate
others, even when the need to do so is inherent in the ordained office.
Few
social gospel advocates would endorse such an illustration, though all would
understand the mindset that provoked it. In the thinking of this movement,
economic inequality is an ipso facto evil. Affluence is therefore a
sin. Without this assumption, the pastorÕs two LexusÕ illustration is
meaningless.
This
presupposition made no sense to most of us in the audience, so we did not
respond to it. Knowing it is also a fundamental assumption in most new social
gospel thinking, we will not respond to it in that context either.
The
supposition that inequality is a de facto evil permeates liberalism. It is the old saw, profit is a dirty word. Socialism itself is based on this assumption.
No new social gospel teacher labels
himself a socialist and few are socio-politically liberal. Yet the mindset has
filtered down from Rauschenbusch, who was an avowed socialist. Much of
his thinking had in roots in socialist theory and the last chapter of his book
extolls the wonderful potential of communism. This was written in 1907 well before the horrors of
socialism in its Nazi and communist forms and its subsequent failures today.
The idea within the new social gospel movement of a
fight for social justice is really an odd syncretism between a liberal
socio-political mindset and evangelical Christianity. Some call themselves
Òprogressives,Ó a term borrowed from liberal politics.
The
new social gospel message is clear. American Christians must bear the brunt of
responsibility for poverty alleviation in the world.
If
you are a North American Christian, the reality of our societyÕs vast wealth
presents you with an enormous responsibility, for throughout the Scriptures
GodÕs people are commanded to show compassion to the poor. In fact, doing so is
simply part of our job description as followers of Jesus Christ (Mt.25:31-46). (When
Helping Hurts, p.13)
In
context, the writers are referring to disparity between America and other
nations, not just within the United States.
The
bottom line is that the commitment of American Christians, the wealthiest Christians
in all history, are making to the world is just about 2 percent of 2
percent— actually about five ten-thousandths of our income. (The Hole
in Our Gospel, p.217)
Why
American Christians owe more than that to the world remains unclear. In fact,
why they owe anything at all is equally unclear. For some new social gospel
teachers, the mere fact of economic disparity is sufficient justification for
attributing guilt or responsibility.
We
must attack the materialism of our culture and the maldistribution of the
nationÕs wealth and services.[66] (Chicago Declaration,
Evangelicals for Social Action)
Inequality
is not necessarily a bad thing nor equality good. The Bible itself makes this
emphatically clear.
In
the parable of the talents, Matthew 25, Jesus describes how a master put money
into the hands of servants to invest for gain. It is the one who did not make a
profit who was punished.
While this parable is a lesson in
faithfulness, not economics, it nevertheless shows that prospering through
investment is not inherently evil.
If we wanted to stretch this a bit, we
could say it indicates a Christian who fails to become unequal when he has the
opportunity to do so, is unfaithful to his master. In such a case, economic
equality would deserve reproach.
A talent was a lot of money in those
days. For the servant who earned five talents, it was a lot of profit. Not
getting rich would have been a sin for him. So inequality is not, in and of itself, an issue.
A
new sound of freedom rings through the New Testament that challenges the new
social gospel mindset regarding the Christian and his money. We see this in
PeterÕs encounter with Ananias and Sapphira.
Then
Peter said, ÒAnanias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you
have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you
received for the land? 4 DidnÕt it belong to you before it was sold? And after
it was sold, wasnÕt the money at your disposal? Acts 5:3
By the words Òbelong to you,Ó Peter acknowledged the right of Ananias and
Sapphira to own property and do with it as they pleased. They could contribute
or not. God would have said nothing if they had kept it for themselves. Liberty
of conscience in personal belongings was a given in the mind of Peter.
We
underestimate how truly free we are in Christ. We have the freedom to give or
not give according to our conscience and without reproach from God or man.
Paul
makes this point very clear in his teaching on the law of sowing and reaping.
In the context, he is talking about the Christian and money.
Remember
this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows
generously will also reap generously. 7 Each man should give what he has
decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God
loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so
that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in
every good work. 2Cor.9:6-8
Paul never commands anybody
to give anything. Nor does he suggest God will punish if they give nothing. He
merely elaborates a godly principle. If we sow money for GodÕs work, we will be a blessing to believers in need
and be blessed ourselves.
We are free to refrain from
sowing if we wish. We are free to not reap a harvest, either. That is our
choice and God will honor it. We are truly that free.
The
new social gospel movement seems to want to impose moral laws from the Old
Testament, though the New Testament makes them matters of personal conscience.
PaulÕs
instructions to the wealthy merit a series of sermons of their own. An often-overlooked
principle is found here.
Command
those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their
hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly
provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be
rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 1 In this way they
will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so
that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. ITim.6:17-19
Besides his warnings to the
rich to avoid arrogance and be generous, he also tells them this: Enjoy your abundance! ÉGod,
who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.
The
concept of entitlement is central to the mindset of the prevailing liberal
culture today. We see it in politics all the time. We resent a person poorer
than us suggesting he is entitled to part of what we have on the sole grounds
we have more. We resent it even further when a politician tells us he is right.
The
ultimate comes when a preacher declares the poor and the politician are both
right because as Christians we owe it. The cherry is put on the top when the
preacher says we owe double because we are Americans.
This
is a pervasive spirit in our age, seeping into the church from the surrounding
culture. Ironically, some absorb this influence and then say Christians must
influence the culture. Who is influencing whom?
Are you prosperous and want
to take a nice vacation? Go right ahead. God does not require you to add up the
cost and make sure you have spent an equivalent amount on the poor. You are
free to make such a calculation if you wish, or not. Let no one say you must.
From
this chapter we learnÉ
á
The new social
gospel assumes economic inequality is the
product of social injustice and America must bear a large part of the burden of
guilt for this disparity. Christians are duty bound to work toward rectifying
this inequality.
á
The above
assumptions are unbiblical. The Bible shows legitimate ways to prosper.
á
Wealthy Christians
have a right to enjoy their prosperity within certain limits proscribed by the
Apostle Paul.
Chapter 11: Biblical Mercy Ministry
GodÕs
compassion for the whole man is in every book of the Bible. This truth must
never be minimized. Social gospel teachers are good at not minimizing it and
this is praiseworthy.
Compassion
for suffering humanity is natural for genuine Christians, though not natural to
the merely religious. The parable of the Good Samaritan is an
example of this.
Mercy
ministry is plainly taught in the epistles as a normal part of church life. It
is, in fact, a ministry-gift of the Spirit.
ÉIf
it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; Éif it is
showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully. Rom.12:7,8
In
Romans 12, the apostle encourages Christians to be specialists. Those with the
gift of teaching must focus on that. Leaders must concentrate on leadership. So
those with a ministry gift of mercy must be specialists in that also.
Overlapping
may occur. A person with a gift of mercy may need to preach once in a while. A
Bible teacher may find himself helping in a soup kitchen from time to time.
GodÕs social justice program
As a
rule, though, ministers of the gospel are not to be involved in mercy ministry.
This statement may stun some people but it is true.
In
Acts 6, the apostles appointed deacons to avoid being distracted from their own
calling by mercy ministry issues.
This
created a separate office from the ordained minister or elder. Since then, the
church has clearly understood the diaconate exists to focus on the physical
needs of the church and its people.
This
office is subordinate to those called to the preaching and teaching of the word
of God. The Apostle Paul makes this clear in 1Timothy 3 as well as 1Timothy 5:17.
People
with mercy gifts often end up in the office of deacon. The diaconate of the
local church, therefore, is GodÕs social justice program.
Mercy
ministry is something every church should do, otherwise the gift would not
exist nor the ordained office established to express it. This is different from
saying every believer must be involved in it else they are failing their Christian
duty. In this sense, the new social gospel typically confuses the difference
between Christians as individuals and Christians as a body of local believers.
The Protestant
reformers understood the principle very well. The Westminster Confession, [67]
written in 1648 by 151 theologians, puts it like this about Christians,
It
is their duty also to come to the aid of one another in material things
according to their various abilities and necessities. As God affords
opportunity, this communion is to be extended to all those in every place who
call on the name for the Lord Jesus.
Nor
does their fellowship with one another as saints take away or infringe upon any
personÕs title to, or right to, his own goods and possessions. (WCF 26-2, 3)
Key points:
á
It is a duty of Christians
to care for one another in material things.
á
This duty is
limited to Christians only.
á
The Christian
nevertheless retains the rights to his personal property and this is not a debt
owed.
If
this is so, where do we put this balance idea taught by the new social gospel?
What do we do with the claim that the gospel has two halves? Or gospel ministry
is not holistic without feeding the poor? A good place for it is out the
window.
The
problem in some churches is not so much a wrong philosophy of ministry but an
unbiblical and inefficient church structure. Some elders function as deacons,
with deacons functioning as janitors and church members not functioning at all.
Members are often not trained in how to minister to others.
In
church planting, everything depends on how you start. A Dutch missionary friend
working on the coast of Ecuador had an outstanding church-planting ministry in
a poor area of Guayaquil. We visited his church one Sunday and were impressed
he did nothing but preach the sermon.
Someone
had unlocked the church doors and Sunday school classes were already in process.
A man directed the service. The music was well played. Announcements, offering
and all other elements of service took place properly. Laymen did all this and
nobody was paid a cent.
The
missionary explained he required every member to have a ministry of some kind,
a job to do. It might be merely arranging the chairs but it was something.
Those who did not contribute in some sort of service could attend but they were
not members.
True,
on the mission field we often have the luxury of starting churches with people
free from erroneous notions as to what a church is supposed to be like.
The
biblical solution to the question of social justice is to raise the offices to biblical
standards, not lower the gospel to the social gospel.
It
would be tempting to say right here that not a scrap of a verse in the epistles
commands Christians to minister to the physical needs of those outside the
church. This would be wrong because a scrap indeed exists. We will leave it to
theologians to belabor the question as to whether a scrap equals half of the
whole.
Therefore,
as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who
belong to the family of believers. Gal. 6:10
The
new social gospel teachers do indeed belabor it. Long articles have been
written on this point.[68]
Precisely what that good may be, Paul leaves to our own thinking. Whether it
excludes a friendly greeting to a neighbor or includes an orphanage is beyond
the scope of the book of Galatians. The ambiguity is probably deliberate.
Most
Christians would not exclude any good work from this verse. Nor is it likely
any would assume such a work makes Christian ministry incomplete without it.
Neither would a sensible Christian read into it a command to alleviate world
poverty, straighten out AmericaÕs trade policies or that it represents the
mission of the church.
The
New Testament indicates church funds may be used for relief of poor members. No
policy exists for the alleviating poverty in the community.
A
church may be led of God to help poor unbelievers but it is not commanded as a
policy. Even among believers some restrictions apply.
Widows,
yes. Not all widows, mind you. Only some. (1Tim.5:9-10)
Lazy
people in the church, absolutely not. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ÒIf a man
will not work, he shall not eat.Ó
2Th. 3:10
In
either case, it is charity dispensed, not justice. Even this is tempered with a
great deal of caution.
During
a famine, the Apostle Paul took an offering from the Corinthians for Òthe poor among the saints in Jerusalem.Ó No mention of meeting the needs of those outside the
church.
Christian
funds devoted to relief issues must be administered with caution. This may
require an apparent lack of generosity at times. We are accountable to God, not
to human perceptions for how much compassion we may show. This avoids being
deviated from our true mission.
Shall
we ignore mercy ministry? No, it is one of the ministry gifts given to the
church for its own benefit and that of others. We shall not put it higher on
the list of gifts than it merits.
This
gift exists for a variety of reasons. Simple necessity is an obvious one. (Titus
3:4) Compassion, we agree, is certainly central because it reflects GodÕs
nature. Another is to shut the mouths of critics because they see our good
deeds. (1Pet.2: 12)
At
all times, we must be careful to make clear this central point: The church must
never be perceived as a public welfare institution. That is not its mission.
Its calling is gospel ministry, biblically defined as preaching the word of God
and making disciples, plus nothing.
On a
web site we found an excellent statement on this point, expressed so eloquently
it is well worth repeating here, although we know nothing about the writer.
(The following was expressed in light of James 1:27, Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and
faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to
keep oneself from being polluted by the world.)
The writerÕs observations
are:
ÒThe Christian is to fulfill these
responsibilities in his various roles in society: family, business, social,
civil, fraternal. But, the church is not
the family, and is not charged by God to raise children.
The
church is not a business, and is not charged with supplying services or making
profits.
The
church is not a social organization such as the LionÕs Club or the
ShrinerÕs, charged with effecting social change and good.
The
church is not a physical sovereignty charged with establishing and
enforcing civil law.
And the church is not a fraternal organization, charged
with supplying recreational and avocational activities.
Those who seek to involve the church
in any of these serve to dissuade her in her primary work of saving souls! This
is a shameful and wasteful use of the institution God chose to deliver His
precious gospel.Ó [69]
We
would like to add one more point to this list to discuss in the next chapter:
The church is not a failure either.
From this chapter we learnÉ
á
The church is
GodÕs social justice program.
á
Ministers of the
gospel are not to be involved in mercy ministry except to see it is
accomplished within the local church.
á
Church funds are
for the relief of the poor of the church, with discretion. No mandate from God
exists to alleviate poverty in the community or the world.
á
The church is
not a public welfare institution and must never be perceived as such, since
that is not its mission.
Chapter 12: The Church Is a Success
LetÕs
peek inside the average Bible-preaching church. We find transformed sinners of
all stamps: ex-drunks, ex-addicts, families restored, formerly wayward youth
and the worst sinners of all, former arrogant rebels who thought they did not
need Jesus.
This
makes the church the most outstanding social success the world has ever seen.
Is there any other institution that can boast such achievements with people?
The church is GodÕs social justice program and it accomplishes its job when it
does what God tells it to doÉpreach the word.
The
church is far from being a failure. One pastor put it well.
How much stronger are the people of God now than at
any point in the history of Israel or the early church! The church should
respect herself for her wondrous past, present, and future, realizing that she
bestrides history and our narrow world like a colossus.
She is at much greater risk from her power than from
her weakness. It is a failure of faith of the first order to lash out on her
behalf, as if she needed defending; it only reflects the narrowness of our own
experience.[70]
Rauschenbusch thought
so for he referred to Éthe failure of Christianity
to undertake its reconstructive social mission.[71]
It was a given to him that reconstructing society is the mission of the church.
The
new brand of social gospel also takes it for granted Christianity in the
western world has failed by neglecting to meet the material needs of
impoverished humanity.
The
problem is a failure to see the church itself as a society. It is the ekklesia, as the Greek puts it, those
Òcalled outÓ from the surrounding community to form a new kind of humanity,
representing GodÕs kingdom. If we want to know if the church successful, the
place to look is inside, not judging from the outside as to how many poor it is
feeding.
It
was testimony time during Sunday service in a peasant village in Latin America where
we were helping to plant a church. Dirt floor. Thatched roof. The smells and
sounds of farm life. We had just finished singing.
JosŽ,
about three years old in the Lord, stood to speak. ÒI have been singing that song
for a long time, wondering if it was really true. I have found out it is. Since
IÕve been doing what it says, our family has lacked for nothing. I donÕt know
exactly how it is has worked out, but it has.Ó His eyes got misty. ÒIt really
does work.Ó
He
was referring to a song in Spanish based on Matthew 6:33, But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things
will be given to you as well.
On
the basis of this promise, along with a few others from scripture, we had
taught them biblical priorities. The principles of giving to GodÕs work the
first fruits and the pursuit of righteousness will result in God meeting our
needs. No, he does not promise riches. He promises enough. The seed of the
righteous do not beg for bread.
In
another church in the capital among upper middle class businessmen, a man stood
and shared how his business had been in trouble. He remembered Matthew 6:33
because we sang the same chorus in that church also. He had been a faithful
giver and was involved in the leadership-training program as a candidate for
elder.
His
testimony? Exactly the same as the villagerÕs. Different culture, different
society. He was unclear on exactly how it worked but his business was out of
the hole. He was learning to stand on the promises of God.
Both
of those churches, the village and the city, are successes if that is how they
are teaching people to live.
What
is the bridge for bringing the spiritual into the material? Answer: The
promises of God. This is exactly what the word of God has said all along.
But
seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be
given to you as well. Mt. 6:33
And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious
riches in Christ Jesus. Phil. 4:19
Give,
and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and
running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it
will be measured to you.Ó Luke 6:38
They
really work. Really, really.
We
were sitting around the dinner table in another village about to enjoy a very
fresh chicken stew. The chicken had been alive an hour before. My missionary
partner was conversing with the host, Enrique, about eighteen months old in the
Lord.
ÒYou
know,Ó Enrique said, Òearning a living here is hard. The only work in our
village is in the cane fields, cutting sugar cane for the whiskey business. It doesnÕt
pay well either. I wish God would provide some other kind of work to do.Ó
My
missionary friend replied, ÒLetÕs pray about it.Ó
A
few minutes later, the missionary said, ÒEnrique, who made this table we are
sitting around?Ó
ÒI
did,Ó he replied.
ÒI
thought so. You said earlier you made all the furniture in your house. Why not
make furniture for the village?Ó
Enrique
thought for moment and said, ÒIf I give up my job in the fields and it does not
work out, weÕll starve. Besides, my tools are old and worn out.Ó
The
missionary said, ÒIÕll tell you what. IÕll loan you my tools. You can make one
piece of furniture and see if you sell it. If it starts to work out, you can go
into business until you have money for your own tools.Ó
Result:
Enrique no longer works in the cane fields. He is the village carpenter and
doing well financially. Another man in the church, inspired by EnriqueÕs
success, also went into the carpentry business.
Though
some church members still work in the cane fields, the church is its own
community and they help each other. They also take turns visiting outlying
villages to reach them with the gospel. This is success in biblical terms.
We
would like to say the village population reached a tipping point in its
understanding and came into the church in droves as they saw the kingdom of God
manifest in word and deed. That would be a lie.
The
reality is that persecution continues. Some villagers feel the Christians have
betrayed the local religion and rocks occasionally bounce off the building
during services. That is the real world of gospel ministry.
The bridge
The
promises of God are the bridge between the spiritual and the physical.
Mercy
ministry is not that bridge. Some may not see this as Òpractical.Ó But then, we
donÕt see leaven working either.
The
best that mercy ministry can do is show that Christians are sincere in their
message. This may indeed gain a hearing among some for the gospel but is not
the gospel itself nor the norm for gospel ministry.
So
the issue is what it has always been; believing God. The problem of the world is
not a failure of the church to supply the physical needs of humanity to prove
the gospel. The problem is unbelief, plain and simple.
The
social gospel has always criticized conservatives for falling into the old
platonic dualism which separates the spiritual and material into distinct
realms, ignoring the practical realities of suffering around them.
This
may be true in some cases. Such is deplorable. What is even more deplorable is
the new social gospel answer to the problem.
The
solution is to do what Jesus said in the Great Commission, what the apostles modeled and proscribed. Go preach
the gospel to the community. Teach those who want to hear. If you run into
someone starving, give him food; NOT spend half the resources on creating
social justice programs in the hopes the world will be impressed and take
notice. It wonÕt be and will do its best not to notice.
Enough
hospitals, rescue missions, orphanages, counseling centers and social works of
all kinds have been done by Christians so that if mercy ministry could convince
people, the world would have been converted by now. The reality is that mercy
ministries often supplement gospel work, yet do not produce the wonderfully
powerful results the social gospel adherents envision. At times it becomes the
tail that wags the dog.
John
MacArthur has a realistic approach,
The
church is not supposed to be some benevolent, nonthreatening agency whose
primary goal is to achieve prestige, popularity, and intellectual acceptance.
Contemporary Christians seem to think that if the world likes us, it will like
our Savior. That is not the case (John 15:18).[72]
We
have seen in practice how the world takes notice. It doesnÕt.
Yet
the new social gospel followers are convinced it will be different in the
future if the church will only buy into the ÒbalanceÓ philosophy.
Picture
a different world. Imagine one in which two billion Christians embrace this
gospel—the whole gospel— Éand completing GodÕs stunning vision of a
reclaimed and redeemed world—the kingdom of God among usÉMight the world
take notice? É[they
will say] Who is the God they serve? And
most important, Can we serve Him too?[73]
(Stearns, World
Vision)
This
whole gospel is truly
good news for the poor, and it is the foundation for a social revolution that has
the power to change the world.[74]
Did
God leave the church with any criteria for measuring its own success?
HereÕs
one: Persecution.
The
world persecutes the church when it feels it can no longer ignore it. This
proves the message is getting through. People cannot suppress what they do not
perceive.
The
maligning of evangelicals in the media, documentaries portraying Christians as
intolerant because we insist there is one Savior, are clear proof the message
has been heard and despised as always. Mercy ministries and transformed sinners
have not changed this fact.
In
ChristÕs communiquŽ in the book of Revelation to the seven churches of Asia
Minor, it is interesting to see what he does not mention as criteria for his
praises or rebukes. Church growth strategy is never an issue, nor is appearing
useful to the world.
His
criteria seem to be two things: Enduring persecution and faithfulness to His
name. Social justice seems to be glaringly absent.
By
these criteria, a church faithfully preaching the word of God, attempting to
reach the community with the gospel and caring for its own, is success.
From this chapter we learnÉ
á
The church
itself is a community and insofar it is composed of saved sinners, it is an
outstanding success.
á
The bridge God
has provided between the spiritual and material is his promises, which when
applied, really work.
á
Persecution is a
good measure of the success of a church, for people persecute only what they
perceive.
We
are stunned. We are amazed. Conservative Christians are embracing the new
social gospel without question, despite centuries of illustrious struggle to
keep the definition of the gospel pristine.
When
new social gospel teachers tell us their gospel is the authentic one, they
imply two things:
á
In the sense of validation. That is, mercy ministry
added to preaching proves to the world the message is of value.
á
In the sense of
a complete gospel. That is, gospel ministry is incomplete,
especially in evangelism, unless accompanied by material benefits to the world.
Both
definitions are false doctrines, leading quickly away from the gospel. Paul saw
this happen in his own day. To the Galatians he said,
I
am astonished that you are so quicklyÉ turning to another gospel. Gal.1:6
So
we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith
in Christ and not by observing the lawÉGal.2:16
Justification
by faith alone in Christ alone is the whole
gospel and nothing else is. Full stop. Put the period there. Our sins are
forgiven and GodÕs free gift of the righteousness of Christ is credited to our
account. No balance. No second half. Add nothing. Not even good things like
mercy ministry.
Any
effort to add or subtract, changes the essential nature of the gospel. Additions,
even good things, kill it. It becomes something else. We cannot balance the
gospel with anything within itself, because it has no parts. It is one simple
indivisible message, justification by faith alone in Christ alone.
Adding anything grieves the Holy Spirit. Death
enters. The only things left are the good works and fine intentions that in
time, fade away just like the gospel they killed.
Right here is the core of the entire new social
gospel movement. Every shred of literature on the subject shouts Òbalance.Ó
The point: Any attempt to balance the definition of
the gospel with anything, is wrong.
HereÕs
how the new social gospel slipped off center:
Many
Christians suppose Paul was dead set against keeping the law or applying
circumcision. Not quite true. Paul said in 1Tim.1:8, we know that the law is good if one uses it properly. That is,
he recognized proper ways for Christians to use the law, although obtaining
righteousness is not one of them.
Neither
did Paul oppose circumcision as such, since he circumcised Timothy for reasons
unrelated to justification. (Acts 16:3)
So,
why was Paul so upset at Judaizers who wanted to supplement the gospel with those
things and impose them on Gentiles?
As
Martin Luther put it in his commentary on Galatians,
Éthe
false apostles had depreciated the Gospel of Paul among the Galatians on the
plea that it was incomplete. [75]
So
then, the issue was not the moral quality of what was supplemented, since the
law is good. The error was in supplementing the gospel by anything at all.
We
have no discourses from Judaizers though we can infer what they were thinking.
We can hear them saying something like this: Surely if the Gentiles were to be
circumcised and keep the law, this would enhance the gospel. IsnÕt this
reasonable?
PaulÕs
answer: No! Any supplement implies the gospel is incomplete. This is where the
new social gospel is blinded by its own zeal: Serving the poor in the community
seems such a wonderful thing!
If
these good things would complete the gospel, then what else from the Law could
be included? Circumcision? So the gospel is not authenticated by social justice
issues any more than by keeping any other part of the Law.
If
Paul went to such lengths in Galatians to defend the sufficiency of his gospel,
would he have something to say about how it shows in the life of those who are
justified?
He
did. Here it is.
But
the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Gal. 5:22-23
The
only authentication of the gospel the apostles recognizes is the Holy Spirit.
The fruit of the Spirit is one of three specific ways the Spirit does his work
of authentication. The other two are:
á
His convincing
and convicting power through the gospel.
When he comes, he will convict the world
of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: John 16:8
á
The spiritual
gifts and ministries given to the church.
Now to each one the manifestation of the
Spirit is given for the common good. 1Cor. 12:7 [There follows a list of
spiritual gifts.] All these are the work
of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he
determines. 1Cor. 12:11
Some
of these gifts may be visibly supernatural, others less so. He may even on
occasion grant a special sign following, as Mark put it. (Mark 16:17-18)
It
would be, of course, a logical and interpretive error to assume the same sign
must follow every believer or even that the list is complete. That would be
just as silly as assuming mercy ministry must follow every believer. This is at
best a general principle that the Holy Spirit will be present in the church in
supernatural ways through gifts and ministries as he grants them. After all,
Paul amplified this and we know the epistles interpret the gospels, not vice
versa.
Paul
describes one definition of Òword and deedÓ in his epistle to the Thessalonians,
For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has
chosen you, 5 because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also
with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. 1Thess. 1:4,5
This shows another take on the word and deed theme
popularized by the new social gospel. Paul counts the convicting power of the
Spirit as the deed that accompanies
the word.
If
mercy ministry were the way the
gospel is authenticated by any definition of the term, the apostles would have
said so. In fact, if it were even one
way the gospel may be authenticated, they would have said so. They didnÕt. They
only mentioned the Holy Spirit, his convicting power, his spiritual gifts to
the church and his fruit basket of virtues. Evidently the apostles thought this
was enough.
Growth
in the fruit of the Spirit will surely result in good works of some kind. Maybe
even a life dedicated to the poor. It will inevitably result in living by the Spirit. (Gal.5:16) This life will also result in
vigilance against any who would throw Law on us as a means to prove our
authenticity.
Galatians
says nothing about a life dedicated to serving the poor or the pursuit of
social justice as the inevitable result of justification. Yet we hear from
todayÕs teachers, ÒÉa life poured out in
deeds of service to the poor is the inevitable sign of any real, true,
justifying gospel-faith.Ó [76]
Did
Paul miss that one? The Epistle to the Romans follows the same pattern as Galatians
with more detail. For the first eleven chapters Paul analyzes the historical
and theological mechanisms behind justification. In the rest of the book, he
discourses at length on how this works out in practice.
In
Chapter 12, we see the believer free from the worldÕs thought-paradigms, in
favor of the one in the word of God. In Chapter 13 we see Christians obedient
to civil authorities. In Chapter 14, freedom of conscience in minor issues. In
Chapter 15, the importance of missions. Finally in Chapter 16, salutations
along with an exhortation to watch out for false teachers who will bring in
ideas contrary to what Paul just taught them.
ThatÕs
it. Full stop. ThatÕs how Paul thought his gospel of justification would
authenticate itself. A life dedicated to serving the poor? To social justice? A
new world order? A visible kingdom? Not a whisper and no , either.
Yes.
HereÕs why.
Anything
that adds to the gospel is by definition a law. It does not matter what the law
is. It does not even matter if it is something God commands. If it is added to
the gospel to make it authentic, it is a wrong gospel.
If
we add material benevolences to the gospel as incumbent upon all Christians to
validate it or make it authentic, then we are repeating the Galatian error in
another form.
Doing
material benevolences for saints and sinners alike is normally to be expected
of a genuine Christian. Those things do not define the gospel nor authenticate
it, nor are they the mission of the church. If it is not
baptizing and teaching, it might be lawful, it might even be commanded, but it
is not obedience to the Great Commission. [77]
From this chapter we learnÉ
á
The notion of an
equal balance between evangelism and social justice is nonsense.
á
GodÕs social
program is the local church.
á
The preaching of
the gospel is the only social action program God ever mandated on the church.
á
Distress and
emergency situations may necessitate Christians to emphasize mercy ministry.
These must not be permitted to cloud the real mission of the church.
á
The new social
gospel movement is a form of legalism because it adds to the mission of the
church obligations that God has not imposed.
Chapter 14: Evangelism and Social Justice
In a
subsection of Humanitarian Jesus titled ÒTrue Evangelism,Ó authors
Buckley & Dobson state,
Evangelism
includes the sharing of the gospel and the meeting of needs. It includes the
challenging of injustice and the championing of the oppressed.[78]
Elsewhere
in the book they affirm that Éevangelism
and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty.[79] This, of course, has an ultimate
purpose which is toÉ.transform society
into the kingdom of God by bringing its institutions and communities into
accordance with GodÕs will.[80]
The
new social gospel is adamant that biblical evangelism is incomplete without the
pursuit of social justice. Any other view is not a fully orbed perspective of
the churchÕs mission.
In
the same book, Humanitarian Jesus, Rod Sider,
President of Evangelicals for Social Action is quoted,
.Ébiblical
Christians are supposed to do both evangelism and social ministry.[81]
É
when it comes to money, time, and resources, I want the church to spend roughly
the same amount of time on evangelism and social action.[82]
Sider
assumes two things: Evangelism is not a social action by itself and social
action is of equal importance to evangelism.
Keller expresses,
I propose a different way to understand evangelism and
social justice. They should exist in an asymmetrical, inseparable relationship.
[83]
Harvey Conn in his book on evangelism said,
At Calvary, Jesus united evangelism with His work of
restoring society.[84]
Apparently
new social gospel proponents feel evangelism is insufficient as a social
action. Even less would they agree that preaching the gospel is in fact, the
only social action program God has mandated for this present age. This is
exactly what the Great Commission affirms.
Curiously,
Tony Campolo who is otherwise known for his liberalism, seems to have gotten it right in saying,
Éto talk about any kind of declaration of the kingdom
that doesnÕt make evangelism paramount, is a distortion of the way in which
Christ would go about it.[85]
He could have added that it would be a distortion of
the way the apostles actually went about it in the book of Acts and commanded
in their epistles. Again, the progressive revelation principle helps us. Do we
have authority to appropriate verses from the Old Testament and the gospels and
ignore Acts and the epistles?
There is a verse in Acts, however, that seems to
contradict our assertion. We must address that:
In
everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the
weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ÔIt is more blessed to
give than to receive.Õ Acts 20:35
Here,
Paul is talking about supporting the weak among the believers, not a balance with evangelism for challenging social
injustices. We do not find him devoting
equal time and resources to social
action. He modeled ministry to the poor within the church.
In the New Testament, evangelism is always portrayed
as a verbal declaration. It is easy to find texts showing this. It is harder to
find anything non-verbal connected with evangelism unless it is a miraculous
healing.
Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, put it eloquently,
The New Testament is stunningly silent on any plan for
governmental or social action. The apostles launched no social reform movement.
Instead, they preached the Gospel of Christ and planted Gospel churches. Our
task is to follow ChristÕs command and the example of the apostles.
There is more to that story, however. The church is
not to adopt a social reform platform as its message, but the faithful church,
wherever it is found, is itself a social reform movement precisely because it
is populated by redeemed sinners who are called to faithfulness in following
Christ. The Gospel is not a message of social salvation, but it does have
social implications.[86]
Charity
is one thing, social justice another. The new social gospel commonly confuses
the difference. One blogger expressed this eloquently:
The Good Samaritan did not stop to exercise
Òsocial justiceÓ when he found the man wounded and robbed by thieves along the
road ÉHe demonstrated compassion toward the victim of a crime, not because he
was socially, ethnically or financially disadvantaged, but because he was
simply a ÒneighborÓ in need.
Furthermore, the Good Samaritan didnÕt go after the thieves to
recover the manÕs belongings, avenge his abuse, have them arrested and start a
travelerÕs protection and possessions recovery program at the local synagogue
because thatÕs not what Jesus was teaching His followers in the parable to do
– nor was it the mission of His coming.
If you steal someoneÕs money, it is ÒjusticeÓ that
sees it returned to its rightful owner and/or has you punished – not
Òcharity.Ó [87]
It
is the same with feeding the poor. Helping a hungry neighbor is charity.
Starting a campaign to redistribute wealth or correct AmericaÕs trade policy is
politics. The latter is not incumbent on Christians. Presenting biblical texts
on charity to rationalize such supposed social justice as a Christian duty is a
reprehensible abuse of the word of God.[88]
We
concede there may be times when charity and justice overlap, yet we need to
exercise wisdom so these never deviate us from our mission. If it is not
preaching and baptizing, it may be a worthy cause but it is not the Great
Commission.
We
are supposed to be generous with charity, not with justice, for justice may
lead to judging or vengeance. These are GodÕs domain, not ours.
Christian
charity is mandated in the New Testament. Social justice is not. The church
MUST minister to the poor in its midst. It MAY minister to the poor in the
community if it can.
Some
have suggested a link between the doctrine of justification by faith and social
justice. This is a semantic error. In logic, this is called the fallacy of equivocation, which means
mixing definitions.
The
words justification and justice have the word just as their root but with different
meanings. The first refers to GodÕs declaration that a believer is vindicated relative
to the divine law because of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Justice
refers to rectification of an immoral or illegal act in social relationships.
Attempting to associate these to support a Christian mandate to fight for
social justice is entirely out of line.
In Humanitarian Jesus, Dobson & Buckley believe ÒEvangelism is the sharing of the gospel and
the meeting of needs.Ó [89]In
the context, they mean material benevolences to unbelievers. The book is
intended as a corrective to an imbalanceÉtoo much gospel and too little mercy
ministry. It consists largely of a series of interviews of Christian leaders
involved in social work to some degree and would place them on kind of
horizontal sliding scale, with the proper balance somewhere in the middle.
Social
gospel literature is usually written with this kind of corrective in mind. They
want us to see pure evangelism as one extreme on the scale and pure social work
as the other, with the truth somewhere in the middle.
Permit
a corrective to the corrective. This kind of thinking is actually predicated on
a typical western way of perceiving reality and is very American in particular.
This
may be a good approach in politics or business. In theology it often leads to error and
the new social gospel conclusion is one of them.
The
Bible is an eastern book not western. We do not get the impression the writers
viewed reality like a horizontal scale with extremes to avoid. Their framework
was more like a wheel with spokes, a core teaching in the center and other
topics branching from it.
So it
is with evangelism in the New Testament. Neither the Great Commission, the book of Acts nor the epistles justify the kind
of balanced scale the new social gospel would like us to adopt. Instead, we get
the impression evangelism is the hub of a wheel. Mercy ministries are spokes
that may or may not flow out of it. Pursuit of social justice to create an
equitable society is not even one of the spokes.
Encouraging
one another to love and good deeds is
perfectly laudable. (Heb. 10:24) Doing so from a perspective the apostles never
endorsed is inappropriate.
While
visiting an army base, we overheard one soldier say to another, ÒThatÕs not
S.O.P.!Ó I inquired what that meant. He said, ÒIt means Standard Operating
Procedure. The army has SOPs for everything.Ó
ÒWhat
about war conditions?Ó I asked. He explained that in emergencies like war,
exceptions arise so often one might confuse exceptions with the rule. The rule
is there precisely so the army does not get confused about its goals and
purposes and can get back on track quickly when conditions allow.
The
book of Acts gives us the norm. Verbal witnessing and the spoken word of God,
plus nothing, is the norm for advancing the kingdom of God. This is our S.O.P.
As we encounter distress situations or emergencies, here is where the ÒWhat
ifsÉÓ fit in. Nothing else is biblical and nothing else is the mission of the
church.
Unfortunately,
as with war conditions, we encounter a lot of distress situations. Sectors of
major cities or entire cultures may be in crisis mode. Earthquakes, famines or
war zones may warrant an emphasis on mercy ministry.
Social
or religious conditions in many countries prevent missionaries from preaching
the gospel openly. Mercy ministries provide a platform to make a possible
platform for the gospel. These are exceptions to the churchÕs S.O.P.
Distress
situations are not the norm for most of humanity today, nor were they in the
first century. Apostolic teams went to cities and people groups that were
making a living and raising families like today. Those teams went to
synagogues, market places and forums which ordinary people frequented.
The
trend of new social gospel books is to describe cultures in distress, such as
impoverished people groups and accounts of how mercy ministry brought fruitful
results for missionaries. In their mind, this proves that evangelism, gospel
ministry and even the gospel itself are incomplete without mercy ministry. [90]
Franklin Graham of SamaritanÕs Purse has it right when
he said,
It never hurts to rehearse the Great Commission, Ôgo into the world and preach the gospelÕÉ Christ did not call us to feed
people. Christ did not call us to heal people. His followers are called to take
His gospel to the hungry, sick, lonely, tormented and lostÉfor He is the only
One who can quench thirst, alleviate hunger, and touch the soul with the salve of
forgiveness, comfort and life.Ó
This
is evangelismÕs S.O.P. Nothing else is.
From this chapter we learnÉ
á
The Bible does
not teach a balance between evangelism and social justice. This is a fantasy
invented by social gospel teachers.
á
Evangelism is
GodÕs social action program.
á
The movement
frequently confuses charity with justice or even justification with commitment to social justice causes.
á
The new social
gospel usually confuses the difference between charity and justice.
Chapter 15: New
Testament Verses Misused
At
first glance, the proof texts used to justify the movement appear imposing,
almost monolithic. In this chapter and the next, we will show the
interpretations offered for these texts are an abuse of scripture. Finally, we
will reveal a key factor that exposes the entire system as paltry.
The
all-time favorite text of the social gospel, both old and new, is the parable
of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46. This parable is invariably quoted
in every social gospel book we have perused so far.
In
this story of final judgment, the sheep and goats are divided before Christ,
one group on the left, the other on the right. Those who showed compassion on
the oppressed are received into the kingdom. Those who did not, are condemned
to everlasting fire.
Stearns
comments,
ÒÉthe
criterion for dividing the two groups is not that the sheep confessed faith in
Christ which the goats did not, but rather that the sheep had acted in tangible
and loving ways toward the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, and the vulnerable,
while the goats did not. ÉThose who had failed to respond, whose faith found no
expression in compassion for the needy, were banished into eternal fire.Ó [91]
As
an evangelical, Stearns is quick to clarify Òthis
does not mean we are saved by piling up enough good works to satisfy God. No,
it means that any authentic and genuine commitment to Christ will be
accompanied by demonstrable evidence of a transformed life.Ó[92]
Christians
throughout history have always declared that a genuine commitment to Christ
will show by a transformed life. Matthew 25 is a great text for exhibiting
that. What this has to do with anything else is the question. These new social
gospel teachers, however, make it into much more.
Jesus
struggled throughout his ministry with calloused religious legalists who
treated the common folk as ignorant rabble.[93]
The above parable shows the difference between genuine believers and heartless
religiosity. Jesus said previously in Matthew 23:4.
They
tie up heavy loads and put them on menÕs shoulders, but they themselves are not
willing to lift a finger to move them.
In
his discussion of the parable in The Prodigal God,
Keller thinks
Jesus is saying,
Ò...the
inevitable sign that you know you are a sinner saved by sheer, costly grace is
a sensitive social conscience and a life poured out in deeds of service to the
poor.Ó [94]
Jesus
is simply showing how true believers are characterized by a normal compassion
for suffering humanity. Religiosity tends to deaden that.
In
the ordinary course of life, we encounter people we can help. Both the sheep
and goats ask the question, Lord, when did
we see you hungryÉ? That is, while leading everyday lives,
they ÒsawÓ people in need and reacted compassionately.
This
is a far cry from saying they had not been serving Jesus at all unless Éthey had been serving the hungry, the
refugee, the sick, and the prisonerÉ[95]
It
is an unjustifiable leap from this parable to the assumption that service to
the poor is a mission to which the church must dedicate itself, that our
spirituality is measurable by it or that it is the other half of the gospel.
ItÕs
like saying Christians must keep the Ten Commandments and manifest the fruit of
the Spirit.[96]
These characterize Christians. That is another subject than the mission of the
church, individual callings or the Great Commission. One might as well say that keeping the Ten
Commandments is the other half of the gospel. Or the fruit of the Spirit is the
churchÕs mission.
In
the parable of the sheep and goats, Jesus is speaking words of comfort, as
Isaiah predicted the Messiah would do. Comfort
my peopleÉ[97]
He is letting them know those calloused religious leaders who oppressed
them and did nothing to alleviate their misery, would receive their just
reward.
In
the meantime, kingdom thrones are being prepared for some of the supposedly
ignorant rabble that found it perfectly natural to help a neighbor in need.
This is the point of the parable and nothing else. Jesus had no intention of
throwing another duty trip on his disciples.
Commentator
Matthew Henry observed that Òuncharitable
indifference to the poor is a sin.Ó [98]
That is clear from this parable. What is less clear is what this has to do
with the mandates the new social gospel imposes on the church.
The
second most commonly quoted parable by the new social gospel is the Good
Samaritan,
A
scribe, an expert in the law, tried
to trap Jesus into betraying something the law specifies. He asked, ÒWho is my
neighbor?Ó Luke 10:25-37
Why
did the scribe ask that? In Old Testament law, the term neighbor generally referred to fellow Jews, members of the covenant
community only. (Lev.19:18) Jesus popped that bubble by making the hero of the
story someone considered by the Jews as being outside the covenant, a Samaritan.
On
this point, Keller is quite
right in pointing out how Jesus extended the term neighbor to include those outside the Òcovenant community,Ó which
today is the church.
The main thrust of Jesus' famous parable of the Good
Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37) is that
the ministry of mercy should not be confined to the covenant community, but
should also be extended to those outside. [99]
In
Humanitarian Jesus, the
authors also show the Samaritan as demonstrating compassion for a person
outside his own race. ÒLove is taking one
step more than you think you can, because the person you are serving canÕt take
steps toward you.Ó [100]
Well
said. Unfortunately, social gospel teachers in general tend to quote this
parable as one of several evidences within books or articles to support
premises that have nothing to do with its original intent.
The
Samaritan was neither a church nor was the robbery victim the world. Nor did
Jesus intend this as an example of a social justice enterprise, the mission of
the church or the Great Commission. It lends support to none of these.
Adding
our own allegorical interpretations to elements of a parable, then imposing
them on Christians without clear warrant is a sure formula for confusion. The
incident in this parable is a singular emergency situation, atypical of daily
life. It is designed to expose the difference between a heart calloused by
ungodly religion versus a normal person with a sense of compassion.
All
they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I
was eager to do.
Occasionally
new social gospel teachers mention this verse in passing to show the apostles
were aware of the need for ministering to the poor. Supposedly it shows Paul
declaring service to the poor as indispensable to gospel ministry.
One
website article considers this verse, Éfurther evidence that when we are
serving Ôthe least of these,Õ we are indeed at the heart of the gospel.[101]
The context shows the writer is
referring to the poor outside the church.
In his attempt to prove the congregation must minister to the poor outside
itself, Keller uses
Gal.2:10 to say the church should, Ògive
offerings and relief to the poor.Ó He adds, ÒSo not only individuals but the church as a body is to be involved in
caring for and giving to the poor.Ó[102]
The
context of Galatians Chapter Two shows the opposite to be the case. During his
visit with the other apostles in Jerusalem, Paul presented his ministry and the
message he preached. He wanted assurance they were all on the same page, Òfor fear that I was running or had run my race in
vain.Ó
Paul
said, ÒThese men added nothing to my
message.Ó That is, the other apostles found PaulÕs gospel to fully complete
and with no supplements needed. After that, they extended to him the right hand of fellowship.
Service
to the poor was plainly something not included in his presentation of the
content of the gospel. Otherwise the apostles would have felt no need to
mention it later.
The
apostles clearly understood that ministry to the poor did not form part of the
gospel nor define gospel ministry at all. Neither did tacking it on at the end
of the conversation make service to the poor into a ÒbalanceÓ with PaulÕs
message.
The
apostles did not specify what poor, whether in the society at large or in the
church. We see how PaulÕs conduct defined it when he took up an offering for Òthe poor saints in Jerusalem.Ó [103]
In
Acts 14 we read that Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, Òfrom whence they
had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.Ó Their ministry of preaching the gospel and planting
churches was fulfilled. No mention of feeding the poor.
Conclusion:
Service to the poor is not a part of the gospel. Attempting to use Galatians.2:10
as support that it is, backfires on the new social gospel proponents.
Suppose
a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to
him, ÒGo, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,Ó but does nothing about his
physical needs, what good is it?
James 2:15,16
But
someone will say, ÒYou have faith; I have deeds.Ó Show me your faith without
deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. James 2:18
James Chapter Two is another popular text for
justifying a distorted application of the slogan, Òword and deed.Ó
All social gospel proponents, old and new, agree that
preaching the gospel alone in evangelism is an inadequate manifestation of Christian
faith. This is a central theme in every book we have perused so far.[104]
James Two is a favorite text to illustrate this and in their thinking, is
unquestionable.
LetÕs question it. Would James exclude evangelism from
a list of good works generated by genuine faith?
This exposes a logic error called the fallacy of exclusions; assuming the
presence of one factor necessarily excludes everything else. It is perfectly
clear that Christians who refuse to respond to a fellow believer in dire need,
prove their faith is not faith at all. This is very different from saying they
lack faith if they are not serving the
poor of the world.
James is saying genuine
faith produces works of some kind or other. We can hardly imagine an apostle
saying evangelism does not count as a good work. James uses a physical example
of a poor brother or sister in need to illustrate his point in concrete terms.
If a
professing believer is involved in nothing at all, neither preaching, teaching,
evangelism or mercy ministry, we have every reason to assume his faith is a
mere pretension.
The
issue with James is a faith that shows itself by works versus a false faith
that shows no fruit of any kind. The contrast is not between the verbal versus
the physical. Reading the latter into the text and then applying it as a
doctrine is an unjustifiable twisting of scripture.
Paul
put it this way,
We
having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and
therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; 2Cor.4:13
It
would seem Paul considered evangelism a product of genuine faith. He would not
include a physical work as a necessary component of evangelism any more than
James would exclude evangelism as a good work. But then, if this is correct,
the new social gospel has nothing to say to us from James Chapter Two.
From this chapter we learnÉ
á
Nothing in the
parables of the Sheep and the Goats nor the Good Samaritan supports
the contentions of the new social gospel.
á
The use of James
Two and Galatians Two as support for the new social gospel claims goes beyond
the intent of the writers.
á
The New
Testament does not validate the new social gospel claims for a balance between
evangelism and the pursuit of social justice.
Chapter 16: Old Testament Verses Misused
The
most popular Old Testament text in new social gospel teaching is Isaiah 58. Here
the prophet derides Israel for its negligence of the poor among them. Isaiah
exposes the religious hypocrisy of the nation by showing its dedication to
fasting, feast days and external religious trappings, while disregarding GodÕs
law relative to the poor in their midst.
Some
argue from this chapter that justice is defined as ministering to the poor.[105]
Consequently, if we focus on serving the poor, then we are doing justice and
being just. If we are not dedicated to that, then it is questionable if we are just, or even justified by faith.
This
is a half-truth. It is certainly right to minister to the poor and wrong to
ignore them when they are in our midst.
The
wrong half has to do with the biblical definition of justice. In the entire
Bible, moralistic terms always have the moral law as their reference point.
These include justice, sin, righteousness, evil, good works, etc. Human
efforts, however well intentioned, are not good, just or righteous unless they
correspond to GodÕs standards.
At
the beginning of Isaiah 58, the prophet refers to Israel as a law-breaker.
Éthey
seem eager to know my ways, as if they were a nation that does what is right
and has not forsaken the commands of its GodÉ Is.58:2
In
the rest of the chapter, Isaiah elaborates on what commandments they had
forsakenÉnegligence of the poor.
Helping
the poor in their midst was part of the Mosaic Law. Isaiah is rebuking the Jews
of his time for covering up their disregard of the Law through other religious
observances. Like all Old Testament prophets, Isaiah was bound to the limits of
the Law.[106]
His role was to rebuke the nation for its law-breaking of which one command was
to care for the poor in its midst.
The
moral principle here is certainly valid for Christians today. We are as guilty
as the Jews in the days of Isaiah if we cover up a disregard for GodÕs commands
through our Christian observances. New social gospel teachers are perfectly
correct in rebuking us if they see us neglecting the poor among our fellow Christians.
Unfortunately,
they go beyond that by disregarding certain points:
- Neither IsaiahÕs exhortation, nor its antecedent
in the Law, contains any mandate to feed the poor outside of Israel.
- The new social gospel assumes the church in this
dispensation inherits the blessings and curses of Israel. If this is not a
hidden assumption, then their exhortations based on Isaiah 58 become
meaningless.
Though
the Bible clearly says the church is the
Israel of God, the degree to which the church inherits IsraelÕs blessings
and curses is a delicate question among theologians.
So
if the new social gospel wishes to apply Isaiah 58 to the church, then it would
follow that the church is to care for poor believers in its midst only.
Therefore,
ministering to the poor believers is something the church MUST do. Helping the
poor of the community outside the church is something it MAY do but it is no
mandate.
Isaiah
58 lends no support to the new social gospel contentions.
Also,
seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into
exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.
This verse is used to support the new social gospel strategy for
evangelism. If the church dedicates itself to blessing the city through mercy
ministry, the church itself will prosper.
Jeremiah was addressing captives in Babylon. Like a typical Hebrew
prophet he was expounding what the Law already said. God warned Israel that
exile would be one of the punishments inflicted for disobedience. During that
exile, God would bless them and remember his covenant with them. (Lev. 26:44-45)
What this has to do with a Christian
fight for social justice, a supposed balance in the gospel or alleviation of
world poverty is a bit hard to see. Even harder to see is why an exhortation
from the Law of Moses, designed to rub the nose of Israel into the consequences
of their disobedience, is relevant to the Christian church.
It
is good to exhort churches to seek the prosperity of their city and bless it in
every way. It becomes dubious when we forget how Jesus said to go about it in
the Great Commission.
The
coup de grace to the new social gospel theology is the concept of
covenant. This is the backbone of
the whole Bible. GodÕs relationship with man in both Testaments is based on
covenant, an agreement between God and his people.
The
word, covenant occurs 264 times in
the Old Testament and 33 times in the New. It is linked inseparably with GodÕs
faithfulness to his promises, which explains why the terms covenant and promise occur
together in the same verse fourteen times throughout the New Testament.
God
is clearly a God of covenants. In the Old Testament, the God of the covenant
people promised to supply their needs. He did so when they were obedient.
(Deut.28) In the New Testament, the covenant God promises to supply all the
needs of believers, spiritually and physically. He does so when they are obedient.
(Phil.4:19)
Not
a lot of difference there, except a Savior shed his blood to confirm the
covenant promises for his people and for those only. (Galatians Chapters Three
and Four and the entire book of Hebrews.)
One
glaring characteristic exists in common between the covenants in both
Testaments: Exclusivity.
No
injunction in the Law of Moses existed for feeding Philistines. The Law was
emphatic about how to care for the poor in Israel. The Pentateuch gives
instructions for a year of jubilee for canceling debts among them.
The
same is with the ÒIsrael of GodÓ today, the Church. [107]
The promises of God in the new covenant are for the people of God, those who
have placed their trust in Christ. That is why no mandate on the church is
found in the New Testament to feed humanity, fight social justice causes or
create an equitable society before Jesus comes.
We
are free to do these if we wish. We are not free to imply they are mandates or
part of the Great Commission. Nor is our spirituality measurable by them.
The
exclusivity principle renders these proof texts irrelevant as support for the
new social gospel. Between this and the principle that revelation is
progressive, the movement crumbles.
Understanding
these errors need not lead to a compassionless spirit. The image of God in man
remains, regardless of any other factor. We must
preach the word of God to humanity. We may
feed them if we can, as long as it does not jeopardize our own people by
depleting resources necessary to complete our mission.
It
is unbiblical to teach that a balance between evangelism and social justice
must exist for the gospel to be whole or authentic.
It
is unbiblical to teach that the mission of the church is to alleviate poverty
in the community or the world.
It
is unbiblical to teach that service to the poor is an indispensable part of the
gospel.
It
is unbiblical to teach that genuine faith in Christ will result in a life of
service to the poor.
It is unbiblical to teach that the kingdom of God
consists in a just and equitable society, in whole or in part, before the
return of Christ.
It
is unbiblical to teach it is part of the mission of the church to participate
with God in the restoration of the physical creation.
It
is unbiblical to associate Christian charity with social justice.
It
is unbiblical to declare it is a mandate on Christians to participate in social
justice causes.
It
is unbiblical to use parables of Jesus to teach that all Christians must
dedicate themselves to the service of the poor.
It
is unbiblical to interpret Old Testament prophecies such as Isaiah 58, Jeremiah
29 or from the Mosaic Law, to impose a mandate on the church to alleviate
poverty in the community or the world.
It
is unbiblical to imply that economic disparity between individuals or nations
is de facto proof of injustice.
It
is unbiblical to declare that Christians owe a debt to the poor they must pay
through mercy ministry, without which they themselves are unjust.
From this chapter we learnÉ
á
The movement
frequently misuses Old Testament texts like Isaiah 58 and Jeremiah 29.
á
The proponents
ignore the exclusivity principle in the scope of these texts and apply them for
the pursuit of social justice in the society today.
á
At first, the
new social gospel theological system looms large and imposing. The exclusivity
principle in the covenants exposes the entire system to be paltry to the point
of silly.
á
The movement
abuses the word of God at important junctures in biblical theology.
Pouring
whiskey into a milk carton has some ethical problems connected with it,
especially if one fails to notify the recipient. Slogans help communicate the
message of any movement, unless it uses popular dictums differently than
normally understood. Erroneous notions get passed off this way to the unwary,
like the whiskey in the milk carton.
The new social gospel has picked up a few sayings,
benign in some contexts but should otherwise be avoided by Christians.
Word and deed
If the popular saying, preach the gospel in word and deed, means our verbal
profession of the gospel should be matched with godly living, it is laudable.
If we profess to know the love of God and ignore a needy neighbor, the
genuineness of our profession may be called into question.
If, on the other hand, it means evangelism is
incomplete unless a material benevolence is granted to an unbeliever, it
conveys a false gospel and a Christian ought not to say it.
If we accept such a dictum as legitimate, we
would have to exclude preaching and teaching as a Òdeed.Ó Does that make sense?
If it does, we must conclude that Paul did very few deeds in his missionary
journeys. A few healing miracles, sure. Apart from that, no good deeds and
certainly no equal and opposite balance to the gospel.
Preach the gospel, use words if necessary
This ungodly dictum is attributed to St. Francis of
Assisi, although no evidence exists he said it.
Why is this dictum ungodly? Something vital is
missing from its definition of the gospel: The
cross. Notice how short it falls from PaulÕs definition:
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you
except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1Cor. 2:2
Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly
portrayed as crucified. Gal.3:1
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I
preached to you, 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first
importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. ICor.15:1,3
The only way the message of the cross can be
communicated is verbally, unless in an Easter pageant or such. Since the dictum
leaves out the cross, it conveys another gospel than the biblical one. No reason
exists for a Christian to utter it.
Holistic ministry
If holistic
ministry means the church should minister to the material as well as the
spiritual needs of its members, it is
fine. If it insinuates Christian ministry is incomplete unless accompanied by
mercy ministry to the world, it should not be used.
Whole gospel
Whenever
this saying means the message of salvation connects a person to Christ who
meets his physical and spiritual needs, it is excellent. If it implies the
gospel itself has a ÒholeÓ or is incomplete without a material benevolence for
unbelievers, it expresses a false gospel and Christians should not use it.
Missional
With
reluctance we include this buzzword. Some churches innocently use it to mean commitment to missions. The term
originated in liberal theology and has been associated with dubious doctrines
such as kingdom now, social gospel and creation-redemption.[108]
Its core meaning was that a church must meet the material needs of humanity
equally with the spiritual. If a group uses this word, it may or may not
reflect a social gospel tendency. Since the word never represented orthodoxy,
we exclude it from our vocabulary.
From this chapter we learnÉ
á
We need to be
alert when certain slogans and buzzwords are used because they may have a
hidden meaning when used by social gospel teachers.
Chapter 18: Comparing Old, New and
the Bible
Is
the new social gospel closer to the old, or closer to the Bible? This chapter summarizes
the important issues.
Service to Poor
Old social gospel: God has given a
mandate to the church to care for the poor and alleviate world poverty.
New social gospel: Christians should
serve the poor as part of their mission. This is a key to world evangelism.
Bible: No such mandate is scriptural
beyond caring for fellow believers. Christian compassion allows the church to
help when it can. The church is not a welfare society.
Creation Mandate
Old social gospel: Mankind is caretaker
of the earth. Since the fall, believers must work to restore the physical
creation as part of the churchÕs mandate.
New social gospel: Same as old
social gospel except acknowledging the need for evangelism. Evangelism is only
a subset of the creation restoration mandate.
Bible: Man is caretaker but no
mandate for the church to restore creation. God will do that at the end of
time. The churchÕs contribution is
to make disciples of all nations through preaching the gospel.
Cultural Mandate
Old social gospel: This subset of
the so-called creation mandate was elaborated by Kuyper after Rauschenbusch.
New social gospel: As part of the
creation mandate, the church should be involved in cultural activities to adorn
the creation with art forms of a healthy nature. This includes changing
societyÕs institutions.
Bible: Christ is the author of gifts
to mankind, not just spiritual ones. Christians with artistic gifts should use
them for GodÕs glory. The apostles never made a conscious effort to change
social institutions.
Balancing Gospel Ministry
Old social gospel: The gospel has
two parts: Preaching and mercy ministry. One without the other is truncated and
incomplete,
New social gospel: Differs from old
social gospel only in giving priority to the Word. It makes mercy ministry an
inseparable part of gospel ministry.
Bible: No such balance exists. Gospel
ministry is fully accomplished when the Word of God is preached and taught,
plus nothing. Mercy ministry should be done when circumstances call for it, to
believers first and then to the world. Ministers of the gospel are not to be
involved in mercy ministry except to oversee it is done through the diaconate
of the local church.
Kingdom of God
Old social gospel: A just and
equitable society is the kingdom of God. Christianity is the means to that end.
New social gospel: The Kingdom of
God is the church, though some include the new social order the church will
create.
Bible: The Kingdom of God is the
totality of all saved, both in heaven and on earth. Its earthly purpose is to make
disciples of all nations until Christ
returns.
Social Justice
Old social gospel: Conforming
society to GodÕs ethical standards through socio political activism is the
churchÕs mission.
New social gospel: Same as old
social gospel but preaching is part of the process.
Bible: Social justice is a concern
of Christians but not their mission. The gospel stands apart from social
activism, though some may be called to that.
Economic Equality
Old social gospel: Inequality is
proof that social injustice has taken place. The United States is guilty of
this. Christians should participate in efforts toward redistribution of wealth.
Capitalism is inherently evil.
New social gospel: American Christians,
because of affluence, have a duty to participate in alleviating world poverty.
Bible: The Bible presupposes the
right to personal property, profit and prosperity. Inequality is not
necessarily injustice. Wealthy Christians should be generous and humble yet
with freedom to enjoy their blessings.
Mission of Jesus
Old social gospel: Jesus came to
establish the kingdom of God as a visible theocratic social order, based on
ethical principles.
New social gospel: Jesus came to
establish the kingdom of God in the form of the church that in turn would help
establish justice on earth. Christians must participate in that process.
Bible: Jesus came to give eternal
life to those the Father had given him. He accomplished this through his life,
death and resurrection. The social gospel scenario of his intent to establish GodÕs
kingdom in visible form with universal social justice before the Second Coming,
is pure fiction.
From this
chapter we learnÉ
á
The new social gospel teachers consider themselves eminently
biblical and conservative. Yet their teachings are far closer to the old social
gospel than to the Bible.
We
have shown that a version of the social gospel is being revived under the guise
of a new emphasis on mercy ministry and social justice. This is a new form that
far transcends a call to more involvement with the needs of society.
It
is a theological system of its own, a worldview that redefines the mission of
the church, the kingdom of God, Christian living and even the content of the
word ÒgospelÓ itself. It is almost a religion of its own.
Mercy ministry is plainly taught in the Bible as a
gift of the Spirit and a necessary outworking of local church life. Zealous
efforts to help the poor are wonderful. When such enthusiasm impinges on the
meaning of the gospel or the mission of the church, we have an obligation to become
alarmed.[109]
Imposing
mandates Christ never decreed, grieves the Spirit, diverts the church from its
calling and extinguishes the power of the gospel.
The
gospel message is not an also-ran
within a wider spectrum of Christian ministry. It is sufficient in itself to
advance the kingdom of God, for it alone is Òthe power of God for salvation.Ó[110]
Buckley, Christian, and Ryan Dobson. Humanitarian Jesus.
Chicago, IL: Moody Press.
By Faith Magazine. Vol. Issue 29. Presbyterian Church in
America, 2010.
Conn, Harvey. Evangelism: Doing Justice and Preaching
Grace. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982.
Corbett, Steve.
Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker House Publishers, 1984.
Great Commision Publications. Westminster Confession of
Faith. Suwannee, GA, 1993.
Henry, Matthew. Commentary On the Whole Bible. Vol. 5.
Iowa Falls, IO: World Bible Publishers, 1986.
Keller, Timothy. Generous Justice. NY, NY: Penguin
Group, 2010.
Ministries of Mercy: The Call of the Jericho Road. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1997.
The Prodigal God. NY, NY: Penguin Group, 2008.
Neibuhr, Richard. Christ and Culture. NY, NY: Harper,
1957.
MacArthur, John. Standing Stong. Second. Colorado
Springs, CO: David Cook Publishing, 2006.
Stearns, Richard. The Hole in Our Gospel. Nashville,
TN: Nelson Publishers, 2009.
Rauschenbusch, Walter. Chritianity and the Scoial Crisis.
NY, NY: Harper, 2007.
This book is now available on KINDLE