Is the Gospel Social?

Labels are handy things. A “label” is a brief “descriptive word or phrase applied to a person, group, theory, etc, as a convenient generalized classification” (Webster). And 0h, how we love to simplify, classify and generalize with labels! I’m sure you can think of many examples, especially of labels used to classify people. However, one which I would like to consider briefly this morning is a label that deals with a practice or teaching, specifically among churches. I’m referring to the label “Social Gospel”. In Webster’s you will find “social” as a prefix attached to many things (“social worker”, “social science”, “social disease”, “social security”, etc.), but you’d probably have to go to a religious dictionary to find “Social Gospel” (or at least to an English dictionary larger than mine). It is a word used in Christian circles, but I’m not sure how it ought to be defined because it all depends on who is using the word. Generally this label is used to refer to the practice of churches getting involved in “social work”, e.g., eliminating poverty, disease or similar problems of society at large. As such, this label is always used to describe a perverted gospel. The idea is that the gospel of Jesus Christ and the work of the church (which is to preach the gospel) was not meant to be “social” in the sense of solving physical problems of society. The purpose of the gospel is to save souls and the purpose of the church is to be focused on such spiritual matters. I totally agree with that in principle. As such, the label “Social Gospel” is useful.

However, labels are often misused and misunderstood, and this one is no exception. Since labels are often defined by the person using them, they can be used for just about anything. For example, since “Social Gospel” refers to turning the focus of the gospel into physical, earthly purposes, then anything with physical or earthly associations is often so labeled. But is it right to do so? If the “Social Gospel” is a perverted gospel, is that to say that the gospel is not social at all? Is the church not social?

More precise definitions will help. I may not be able to precisely define “Social Gospel”, but I can define “social”: “1. Of or having to do with human beings living together as a group in a situation in which their dealings with one another affect their common welfare…” (Webster). Sounds like a good description of the church to me. Just consider the literally dozens of “one another” passages in the scriptures. We are to love one another and love our neighbor; prefer and honor one another; be hospitable to one another; accept one another; admonish, encourage, exhort, edify and teach one another; stimulate one another to love and good deeds; greet one another; serve one another; forbear and forgive one another; comfort one another; bear one another’s burdens; pray for one another; submit to one another; sing to one another and eat with one another (the passages were too many to list). The fact is that much of the New Testament is devoted to our “one another” relationship in the church. That sounds pretty social to me.  While the gospel and the work of the church is mainly spiritual, it is nonetheless social. For that matter, we cannot completely separate the spiritual from the physical and earthly. Since we are physical and earthly creatures, we must carry out spiritual activities through physical means (e.g. our giving of money, which Jesus calls “unrighteous mammon”, is a form of worship, an “offering” to the Lord). So let us be careful and thoughtful about the labels we use, lest we find ourselves simplifying, generalizing and classifying scriptural things as wrong.

© 2006 Randy Hohf