The Church and the Social Gospel

Glenn Beck, radio and television talk show host, has always been controversial. He thrives on it. I am not a fan and I think I will leave it at that. My personal opinions of the man and his overall ideology is better left unsaid. And, I hardly have the time today, so that is another incentive to keep my mouth shut at this time. I would, however, like to touch on a subject that has created much controversy over recent days. Mr. Beck encouraged people attending churches that used the term social or economic justice to leave and find another church. He also equated social/economic justice to socialism, etc.

After steaming about this for a week now, and joining every "anti-Beck" group I could find on Facebook, I have had time for the initial indignation to subside and to really think about this problem. Unfortunately, Beck's sentiment is wide spread, and even Christians are very divided on the issue of social justice and what role the church should play in addressing the woes of society. There are two scriptures that come to my mind that address this very issue and I think they are very important in helping us to reflect upon our place in the world as people of faith. And really, that is what the core argument is all about to me. What part should the church or person of faith play in addressing the social and economic evils present in our world?



The first scripture is found in the epistle of James. In chapter 2, James speaks of a person entering the church who is obviously in need. Faced with this situation, the people of the church can pat the person on the back and speak meaningless words of encouragement or they can actually take the person and minister to his or her immanent needs: clothing, hunger, etc. Over the years, I have heard this principle derived from this scripture: you must first meet a person's physical needs before you can minister to their spiritual needs. I must admit that I have thought the very same thing. While I do think it is a worthwhile logic, I do not think this is what is being said here.

As a Western thinker and one who holds certain notions about the value of our free enterprise system, it is obvious to see how easy it is to allow these ideas to affect our reading of scripture. My mind, conditioned as it is to think that hard work pays off , naturally assumes that if this person James was talking about had worked hard, he or she would inevitably be able to care for themselves. But, James makes no such judgment. There is no indication that this person is in need due to anything they themselves have done.

James is speaking to the church, explaining what its disposition should be toward those who are less fortunate. Jesus, himself, said that the poor will always be with you. While the social gospel seeks to eliminate such, there will always be a portion of the world's population who are much less fortunate than others. And, no matter how studious they are or how hard they work, they will likely never rise above poverty.

So, what does that mean for us as Christians today? Should we simply bow out of the fight because it is not winnable? Should we do as Beck advises and shun anything relating to social or economic justice? Should we simply accept a capitalist doctrine and judge the entire world by our own standard of living; a standard of living that is apparently given to us because of "in God we trust" (note, sarcasm)? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding "NO!"

This leads me to the second scripture that I think is applicable here. Jesus, in Matthew 25, gave us the parable of the sheep and goats. The setting is that of judgment and the criterion of judgment is altruism. Jesus says that we will be judged on our attitude towards and our actions on behalf of those less fortunate that ourselves. This makes our response toward those less fortunate than ourselves, in social and economic terms, all the more important. In light of this scripture, I believe that legitimate faith must be involved in the plight of others. Hence, it must be a gospel that is both socially and economically inclined.

No matter how the critics phrase it, we can not absolve ourselves of our moral and spiritual responsibility to help and reach out to others who are in need. One thing that impresses me about Christ is that he reached out to those in need within his society. Those people, living on the margins of his day were the very people whom Christ befriended and touched. Even the early days of the Christian movement itself shows that it was a movement of outcast, comprised of those people on the fringes of society who clearly needed help and the hope of a better future.

Whether or not we will ever enact the physical kingdom of God on earth is irrelevant. Our investment in others, those people less fortunate than ourselves, is in fact, the very heart of the gospel. Sure, it may not mesh with capitalist ideology or the principles of free enterprise. But, it meshes with the very heart of the gospel. Label it however you wish, but it does not nor will it ever erase the heart of the Jesus' message and ministry. We are called, as people of faith, to minister and meet the needs of the human race, many of whom are hurting, naked, in prison, and lacking the basic necessities of mere existence. How could we do anything but oppose a system that rewards the rich by allowing them to get richer and shuns those less fortunate? If our gospel has no social and economic ramifications, then I highly doubt it has anything in common with the good news of Christ--who came to preach glad tidings to the poor!