The Social Gospel?

[Van]

Like many buss word phrase, people use the same phrase, but understand its meaning very differently. When I hear the phrase, I see it as an attempt by the godless life to infiltrate the body of Christ with destructive heresies.

In my youth, the concept was explained to me this way, the true gospel says God changes people from the inside out, giving them a new heart. The social gospel says humans can change people from the outside in, using persuasion and compulsion to achieve utopia on earth. Probably does not give the concept a fair shake.

Rather than rehashing to various historical beliefs, as discussed here:

Social Gospel - Wikipedia​

my focus is on the obligation, if any, for Christians to act in unity to vote against the godless left, and its puppet, the Democrat Party.

What does the bible say about supporting leaders who reflect biblical principles?

 

[JonC]

I think there is a confusion with the term as well.

The gospel is focused on God's kingdom, men entering and participating in this kingdom. This has a social impact. Roman pagans lamented that Christians were helping Roman citizens who lived in poverty more than their own cults cared for people.

But the term "social gospel" is taken to be something other than the gospel itself. It is a "gospel" focused on societal issues rather than society benefitting from Christians doing kingdom work as a testimony of Christ.

MLK Jr. Is an excellent example here. His focus was not on the gospel or on God but on injustices in society. These needed to be addressed both within and outside of Christianity. And MLK Jr. aptly identified a failure and hypocrisy within the church. But his was distinctly a "social gospel".


The test is simple. The gospel is centered on Christ. A social gospel is centered on society, looks to Christian values as a theme but is not dependent on Christ Himself.

 

[JonC]

my focus is on the obligation, if any, for Christians to act in unity to vote against the godless left, and its puppet, the Democrat Party.

What does the bible say about supporting leaders who reflect biblical principles?

I'd say the Christian life itself is a stand against the Democrats. We are not called to take the offensive position but to simply stand in Christ.


A major apologetic of the church prior to the Roman Catholic Church was that Christians assume leadership, support, and governance within the Body (within the congregation) and abstain from secular politics. This included willful participation in the military.

The argument towards which this apologetic was made was that Christians by refusing to participate in Roman politics were unpatriotic and dangerous to the Roman government. This was made by non-Christian Romans.


So my answer is "no, a Christian is not obligated to act in unity against the World but instead to be a "light" and stand in this World for Christ".

 

[Logos1560]

The social gospel would seem to be the type-gospel advocated by Liberation theology and also by Black Liberation Theology

Kamala Harris has been influenced by the Marxist influenced "Black Liberation Theology" of James Hal Cone (1938-2018).

Owen Strachan wrote: "For Cone, BLT [Black Liberation Theology] depends upon the Marxist system of oppressor and oppressed (hegemony)" (CHRISTIANITY AND WOKENESS: HOW THE SOCIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT IS HIJACKING THE GOSPEL, p. 45).

Owen Strachan noted: "Denying the substitutionary atonement--and even decrying it as a form of weakness alien to a truly liberated people--he [James Cone] made the move that the liberal Protestants had already executed, albeit from within his own social location. The Christian faith became a message of communal empowerment, not soul salvation" (p. 46).

Owen Strachan noted: "Cone merged Marxist thought with his own conception of socially oriented Christianity. He argued for the 'blackness' of Jesus at the same time that he rejected the sin-cleansing atonement of Christ" (p. 46).

Owen Strachan wrote: "Fusing Marxist thought with the writings of the Old Testament prophets, Liberation Theology recast the task of the Church, making it about the uplifting of oppressed peoples. Cone applied this system to the plight of the 'black church'" (p. 46).

 

[JonC]

The social gospel would seem to be the type-gospel advocated by Liberation theology and also by Black Liberation Theology

Kamala Harris has been influenced by the Marxist influenced "Black Liberation Theology" of James Hal Cone (1938-2018).

Owen Strachan wrote: "For Cone, BLT [Black Liberation Theology] depends upon the Marxist system of oppressor and oppressed (hegemony)" (CHRISTIANITY AND WOKENESS: HOW THE SOCIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT IS HIJACKING THE GOSPEL, p. 45).

Owen Strachan noted: "Denying the substitutionary atonement--and even decrying it as a form of weakness alien to a truly liberated people--he [James Cone] made the move that the liberal Protestants had already executed, albeit from within his own social location. The Christian faith became a message of communal empowerment, not soul salvation" (p. 46).

Owen Strachan noted: "Cone merged Marxist thought with his own conception of socially oriented Christianity. He argued for the 'blackness' of Jesus at the same time that he rejected the sin-cleansing atonement of Christ" (p. 46).

Owen Strachan wrote: "Fusing Marxist thought with the writings of the Old Testament prophets, Liberation Theology recast the task of the Church, making it about the uplifting of oppressed peoples. Cone applied this system to the plight of the 'black church'" (p. 46).

I think on a broader scope a "social gospel" would be any "gospel" that focuses on healing society (healing the world) over the gospel of Christ.

It gets difficult because churches are supposed to care for the poor, feed the hungry.

I think the difference - or part of the difference - may be in the vehicle used. Is it Christians through the church being a light to the World or individuals through secular politics trying to make a change?

A social gospel tries to heal a nation or community. The gospel of Jesus Christ is individual.

 

[Van]

What does the bible say about supporting leaders who reflect biblical principles?

This is the bible study question posed by the OP.

1) "We are not called to take a stand against Democrats." This claim was not supported by any passage of scripture.

2) The claim was made that MLK's message was not focused on implementing Christian (biblically based) values, such as treating siblings in Christ as equals.

3) One of the key issues in the New Testament was the effort by those wielding political power, such as the Sanhedrin, tried to prevent free speech of those advocating "the Way." And the disciples took actions calculated to allow them to continue to speak freely.

4) Christ taught we are to speak plainly, clearly and bodily.

5) Does the bible teach we, as disciples of Christ, are to take offensive positions, being intolerant of false teachers?

6) What verse says some Christians are never called to act as secular leaders?

7) The New Testament illustrates disciples operating within the constraints imposed by the culture of that time, and so examples of our obligations in a representative democracy must be derived by careful and prayerful study. That is the purpose of this thread.

 

[Van]

How does scripture indicate the New Testament church selected people to provide leadership?

Were the members asked to vote for those they thought best?

What does the bible teach about how Christians function in a democracy?

 

[JonC]

How does scripture indicate the New Testament church selected people to provide leadership?

Were the members asked to vote for those they thought best?

What does the bible teach about how Christians function in a democracy?

The NT indicates two ways of selecting leadership- appointing (deacons) and choosing from among themselves (pastor). But it does not prescribe the method the congregation uses to choose.

The Bible teaches that believers are to be a holy people separated from the World, and that these worldly powers are powers ultimately at odds with Christ. I see no prescribed way of observing this.

 

[JonC]

Lyman Abbott was one of the leaders of the social gospel movement.

Perhaps one thing we need to examine before looking at what it is is why it came about.

Abbott became concerned with problems associated with the Industrial Revolution. The Social Gospel realized that both Socialism and laissez-faire Capitalism was problematic.

The key to differentiating the Social Gospel from the gospel of Christ is the idea that it is not only individuals that need salvation but also that Christians are charged with saving society.

This is linked with the common idea of the time that God was using Christians to transform the world into God's Kingdom (an idea abandoned to a large extent after WW1).

 

[JonC]

So "social gospel" refers to the movement within Christianity that believes it is the role of the church to save society (in addition to individuals) by reforming a nation to embrace issues of justice and poverty.

How is this manifest today?

 

[Van]

Act 26:9
“I used to believe that I ought to do everything I could to oppose the very name of Jesus the Nazarene.

Act 26:10
Indeed, I did just that in Jerusalem. Authorized by the leading priests, I caused many believers there to be sent to prison. And I cast my vote against them when they were condemned to death.

Act 26:11
Many times I had them punished in the synagogues to get them to curse Jesus. I was so violently opposed to them that I even chased them down in foreign cities.

The above passage indicates the political action taken by those holding mistaken views, so our conclusion should be we should stand firm against these sort of actions.

 

[JonC]

Act 26:9
“I used to believe that I ought to do everything I could to oppose the very name of Jesus the Nazarene.

Act 26:10
Indeed, I did just that in Jerusalem. Authorized by the leading priests, I caused many believers there to be sent to prison. And I cast my vote against them when they were condemned to death.

Act 26:11
Many times I had them punished in the synagogues to get them to curse Jesus. I was so violently opposed to them that I even chased them down in foreign cities.

The above passage indicates the political action taken by those holding mistaken views, so our conclusion should be we should stand firm against these sort of actions.

And....Scripture tells us how we are to stand. The Apostalic Church did not stand against those things but they stood. They stood in Christ. And that stand was enough. The standing itself was an opposition.

 

[Van]

And....Scripture tells us how we are to stand. The Apostalic Church did not stand against those things but they stood. They stood in Christ. And that stand was enough. The standing itself was an opposition.

Sorry, but this view is unbiblical nonsense.

Once again claims are made, but no scripture is cited. This was supposed to be an exercise in bible study, presenting various understandings of what scripture teaches.

Ephesians 6:11 NASB
Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.

What constitutes the "schemes" of the devil?

1) Lying?

2) Making false claims?

3) Being a wolf in sheep's clothing?

4) Saying wrong is right?

Anyone who denies Christians should take a united stand against the Democrat Party has no understanding of the scriptural mandate to do just that.

Did the unbelieving Jews "weaponize" the Law to go after Christ and His followers such as Peter and Paul?

Did they employ lip service "Christians" to betray truth?

Try reading Acts 4:1-22 with an open mind, comparing the behavior of those opposed to Christ then with those opposed to Christ now.

 

[JonC]

Sorry, but this view is unbiblical nonsense.

Once again claims are made, but no scripture is cited. This was supposed to be an exercise in bible study, presenting various understandings of what scripture teaches.

Ephesians 6:11 NASB
Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.

What constitutes the "schemes" of the devil?

1) Lying?

2) Making false claims?

3) Being a wolf in sheep's clothing?

4) Saying wrong is right?

Anyone who denies Christians should take a united stand against the Democrat Party has no understanding of the scriptural mandate to do just that.

Did the unbelieving Jews "weaponize" the Law to go after Christ and His followers such as Peter and Paul?

Did they employ lip service "Christians" to betray truth?

Try reading Acts 4:1-22 with an open mind, comparing the behavior of those opposed to Christ then with those opposed to Christ now.

You are wrong. Your error is due to lifting one verse while ignoring the rest of the passage.

The verse can be taken to mean a secular resistance movement but the passage explains this to be resisting those influences.

We put on the armor of God. We stand in Christ.

Too many Christiams have trashed God's armor as useless and put on the armor of the world forces of this darkness. They engage the enemy by joining the enemy and forsaking God.

 

[Van]

You are wrong. Your error is due to lifting one verse while ignoring the rest of the passage.

The verse can be taken to mean a secular resistance movement but the passage explains this to be resisting those influences.

We put on the armor of God. We stand in Christ.

Too many Christians have trashed God's armor as useless and put on the armor of the world forces of this darkness. They engage the enemy by joining the enemy and forsaking God.

Sorry, but you are wrong. That is why you did not support your claim.

Which verse did I "lift." Ephesians 6:11? You did not say, so I must assume.

What is the passage I ignored? You did not say thus I must assume Ephesians 6:10-17

Did I ignore that we struggle against the "world forces of darkness?" Nope

Did I ignore that we are to take up the "full armor of God" thus "having done everything to stand firm" against the schemes of the devil. Nope

Clearly my view is that the bible teaches we, believers in the 21 century, are to do everything to stand firm against the world forces of darkness, whether Atheist or Islamic.

 

[Van]

Acts of the Apostles 4:29 NASB
“And as for the present situation, Lord, look at their threats, and grant to Your bond-servants to speak Your word with all confidence,

What actions might allow freedom of speech? Supporting those who suppress free speech covertly? Nope.

 

[JonC]

Acts of the Apostles 4:29 NASB
“And as for the present situation, Lord, look at their threats, and grant to Your bond-servants to speak Your word with all confidence,

What actions might allow freedom of speech? Supporting those who suppress free speech covertly? Nope.

It was not about defending freedom of speech but about proclaiming the Word of God boldly.


If you mean that Christians should speak the Word of God boldly, then I agree.

If you mean that Christians should join "the world forces of this darkness" in order to maintain free speech, then I disagree.

 

[Van]

If we carefully read Acts of the Apostles 24:1-16, we see that Paul was careful to take actions to protect the people from false beliefs and present the Christian "Way."

 

[JonC]

Sorry, but you are wrong. That is why you did not support your claim.

Which verse did I "lift." Ephesians 6:11? You did not say, so I must assume.

What is the passage I ignored? You did not say thus I must assume Ephesians 6:10-17

Did I ignore that we struggle against the "world forces of darkness?" Nope

Did I ignore that we are to take up the "full armor of God" thus "having done everything to stand firm" against the schemes of the devil. Nope

Clearly my view is that the bible teaches we, believers in the 21 century, are to do everything to stand firm against the world forces of darkness, whether Atheist or Islamic.

No need to assume. You posted one verse out of an larger passage.

I agree that Christians are to stand firm in the Word of God, that we are to proclaim His Word boldly.

I disagree that we must become evil to combat greater evil.

 

[Van]

I see the claim was made that I might be advocating that Christians should "join" the world forces of darkness." But here is my quote.
"Did I ignore that we struggle against the "world forces of darkness?"

Why would anyone make such an obviously false claim? Go figure.

[I see an additional post to suggest I said we must become evil. One false claim after another, for no good reason....}