Beyond The Horizons
The Social Implications Of The Gospel
The social implications of the gospel — what application of the gospel is to be made to the ills of the world? It is certain that the gospel is designed to change men.
It is equally certain that men must be changed before society can be changed.
The Social Gospel movement is an effort to solve community problems and reform society with the New Testament faith. The movement in its beginning sought to pave the way for an utopia. The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia describes the original movement as follows:
It was the confident hope of Christian leaders that the application of Christian principles to the ordering of society would lead to the rectification of serious social evils and pave the way for the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth.
Today the Social Gospel is an approach to Christianity as a social philosophy. It emphasizes the needs of the present life and reduces the hope of the future life to uncertainty. Consequently, leaders in the Social Gospel movement will talk much more of problems of society and happiness in this life than of the resurrection, the judgment and immortality. It appears certain that many leaders in the Social Gospel movement lack conviction regarding the hereafter and are actually laboring under the name Christian merely because of the social implications contained in the New Testament faith. Sound doctrine, church identity, and Bible authority are matters of less concern than the social implications of the New Testament faith.
What are these social implications of the gospel? The social implications of the gospel are seen in the New Testament's view of a Christian in his community. Jesus said, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." This certainly involves a Christian's behaviour in his community. Paul said, "Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." Peter said, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well." In such teaching the social implications of the gospel are seen.
But the New Testament faith is not a "Religion of Culture". It was not given to "Christianize" social, political or economic orders. Jesus was not a social or political revolutionist. Christians are described as making up a holy nation and a peculiar people (1 Peter 2:9, Titus 2:4). The church is not a force for transforming the culture of a community or a nation. The New Testament faith is directed at individuals. Individuals in turn direct to it other individuals. Individuals who accept it become members of the Lord's body and become a part of a "holy nation. The transformed, converted, changed individual, as a Christian, naturally and efficiently serves as an influence for good in his family, in his social environment, in his country. But he believes, that, at the best, this world is only a temporary abode.
The New Testament faith was not given as a social culture. It was not given as an ethic for a social order. When the New Testament faith is considered as something to use as a religionizing or Christianizing social philosophy it is misused and perverted.
It is true that principles of the New Testament faith have found their way into government constitutions, social reforms and economic orders. This factor is somewhat parallel to the situation existing in Old Testament times among Gentile people. The Law of Moses was given to the Jews only. Yet Gentile people did by nature the things contained in the Law. "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves." (Romans 2:14) The Law of Moses was not given to transform Gentile culture. But Gentile culture was often influenced by principles identical to those projected by the Law.
The Social Gospel does not emphasize making the individual what God wants him to be doctrinally and spiritually. It makes the New Testament faith a social philosophy. The New Testament faith is not a social philosophy. It is God's plan for saving the individual from a wicked world. (Acts 2:39) A community or nation may be religionized by the Social Gospel, but individuals are not saved for the after-life until they obey from the heart that form of doctrine which makes men free from sin. (Romans 6:17-18) The Social Gospel does not prepare men for the after-life. It exalts present human welfare over the aspects of immortality. It does not make a person what God would have him be.
An excellent article on the Social Gospel by Robert Atkinson appeared in The Gospel Guardian of August 7, 1958. Brother Atkinson points out that the advocates of the Social Gospel do not accept Jesus as the Source of Truth. They evaluate him on the basis of his social work. Christianity is measured solely on the basis of its social contributions. The betterment of man's lot in this life is the central thrust of the Social Gospel.
Certainly there are social implications in the New Testament faith. But the gospel of Christ transforms and prepares the individual for the next life rather than for this one.
Catholics Break From Rome?
Dr. E. S. James, editor of The Baptist Standard, created quite a stir among Catholics when he suggested that "Catholics must break ties with the Pope and make a declaration of freedom from their clergy before Protestants could consider a Catholic to be trusted as a presidential candidate."
James is the first leader of prominence to make such a bold declaration. But the idea is not a new one. No doubt all non-Catholics who carefully analyze the Roman Catholic religio-political order have thought along the same lines.
The Catholics claim that their ties with the pope are merely spiritual and do not involve politics. But they officially oppose the Communist political order. We are glad they do oppose Communism. But there was a time when they opposed Americanism. If the constitution had been written under Roman Catholic influence it would be a much different document. The nature of their official opposition to Communism shows that they do indeed owe more than a spiritual obligation to the pope.
The Baptist editor has cut to the quick.