The Social Gospel
Quote:
Churches would do well to turn their fancy million dollar
mausoleums (church buildings) into workshops and/or kitchens to feed the hungry
and clothe the needy and shelter the homeless. Instead they are used usually no
more than 4 hours a week unless they are having a “gospel” meeting which would
up that occupancy rate to about 9 or 10 hours. How does this glorify God? (Max
Ray)
Reply: This mentality
is what you find among brethren do not like to be limited to the authority of
the Bible. They cannot find the early church making social arrangements to feed
the hungry in the Bible. The examples we do have was when a famine took place
or special circumstances called for seeing to the physical needs of the
“saints”, but the corporate (combined) work of the church was designed for
getting the gospel into the heart of the saints so that they could get the
saving message into the hearts and lives of others.
In Acts 3 we have an opportunity for the Lord to show us
what the church should and should not be doing.
There is a begging lame man asking for alms. Peter, led by the Holy
Spirit, did not stop to tell the man that the church has just the right social
program for his physical needs. He did
not think about it being the work of the church to see to the physical needs of
the poor. Instead, he showed that it was
an individual responsibility to do what he could. He told him he had no silver or gold to give
him, but that he did have something he could give, and then he worked the
miracle that set this man in position to see to his own needs and to be another
reason for all to listen to the gospel this miracle was confirming. There were limitations placed upon churches
not to be charged (1 Tim.5:16), yet our brother, quoted above, would charge the
church with endless charges for feeding the hungry and giving shelter to the
homeless. His view of authority simply
does not match the scriptures. Limited
charges to the church for saints only in physical need and individuals seeing
to physical needs as they have opportunity and ability, versus the church on a
mission to feed, clothe, and shelter the homeless are two entirely different
views of authority and the mission of the church.
In 1983 brother Harold Fite wrote:
Where are the Scriptures which authorize churches involving
themselves in recreational pursuits and setting themselves up as social
services agencies?
Brethren generally opposed the social gospel concept forty
years ago. There are those who opposed it then, but have completely embraced it
now without saying as much as "excuse me." Was N. B. Hardeman wrong
in 1942 when he said, "It is not the work of the church to furnish
entertainment for the members. I have never read anything in the Bible that
indicated to me that such was the part of the work of the church. I am wholly
ignorant of any scripture that even points in that direction." Was B.C.
Goodpasture in error in 1948, when he wrote in the Gospel Advocate, "For
the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and
recreation is to pervert its mission. It is to degrade its mission. Amusement
and recreation should stem from the home rather than the church." If
brethren were in error in opposing the social gospel then, all need to repent
and embrace it now. But if they taught the truth then, it remains truth today,
and those of the contrary part need to repent and turn to that truth.-Unquote!
In 1980 Mike Willis observed:
The manner in which social problems were affected in the New
Testament was through the preaching of the gospel. Helping social problems was
a by-product of Christianity, not its primary message. When the gospel sank
into a man's heart and he obeyed it, he became a better citizen in the
community, a better employee or employer, a better father, a better neighbor,
etc. However, these changes came because he became a disciple of Jesus Christ,
not because the work of the church was to become involved in labor/management
decisions, in building hospitals, or in politics. Rather, these changes which
occurred in the man came as a by-product of him becoming a Christian.-Unquote!
The Example Of Jesus
It has been argued that when Jesus fed the multitudes, we
are being given a precedent for the congregation to provide or fund
potlucks. Jesus fed the multitudes,
therefore we can eat in the building, build a kitchen, fellowship hall, and so
on. Points To Note: Someone has said, “That which proves too much
(or just about everything) proves nothing at all.” Jesus also healed people, does that give the
Church the authority to go into the medical field? Is it the work of the Church to own
hospitals, have stock in pharmaceutical companies and so on? Jesus also made some wine for a wedding party
(John 2:6-9). Is it the work of the
Church to be involved in the catering business, can we building a wedding
chapel, or can we own a processing plant for various beverages? Seeing that Jesus made wine, can we ‘make’
anything and distribute it, Church of Christ Natural Fruit Drinks? To parallel such meals to a church funded
meal misses a number of points. 1. The church wasn’t established as yet (Matthew
16:18; Acts 2:47). 2. Money collected on the first day of the week
wasn’t used, facilities purchased with the Lord’s money weren’t used
either. How many people are really
prepared to argue that whatever Jesus did as an individual, the funds and
resources of the local congregation can be used for the same thing? 3.
Jesus feeding the multitudes is not a parallel to congregational action,
rather it is a parallel to what an individual Christian might do (of course in
a non-miraculous manner and on a smaller scale). As an individual I have the right to provide
meals for neighbors, friends, and strangers.
The obligation of extending hospitality rests upon the individual
Christian (Hebrews 13:2). http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/lessons/series/Authority/Authority_Class_20_21.htm
The call of God to the church is to preach the gospel to the
lost, and when men get their hearts and lives right with God, they will begin
taking care of their families and helping others as they become productive
citizens and neighbors. The social
gospel is to charge the church with a mission God did not give the early
church. The social gospel is now, as it
has always been, a step in the wrong direction. It has no stopping point
logically or scripturally. Those who
advocate it are never able to demonstrate from scriptures that the church then
or now should have set up kitchens and hotels for the feeding and sheltering of
the lost. Our mission is to feed them
with the gospel and provide for their spiritual shelter in Christ. The home and community are to see to the
physical needs as they have opportunity and ability. “Let not the church be charged”(1 Tim.5:16)
needs to echo in their conscience until they realize they need to start seeking
God’s way of doing things instead of their own way. -Terry W. Benton
