When I think of what could be termed as being a social gospel, I think of people like Gandhi, Oprah, or MLK (Martin Luther King)
Of the 3 only the latter could be termed as preaching a social gospel, as he was a minister of religion....aka a pastor.
Mlk used the life of Jesus as something to emulate in His humanity...not concerned for the more spiritual aspects....like whether Jesus was divine or not. To him, that was beside the point. Anything spiritual, to him, was to be taken as a metaphor...a philosophy meant to inspire a human activism in conformity with the message of Jesus in His humanity. Social justice, human rights,...love of one's fellow man.
Gandhi said...I love your Christ, not your Christians. Gandhi was exposed to the charlatan aspect of Christianity that did NOTHING to follow Christ but rather used Him as an idol to worship and a religious ideological claim to be "going to heaven" in an afterlife by simply "accepting" Him. Gandhi found that to be "anti-Christian". Why do we not obey the One we call Lord??
We can compare that social stance to the airy-fairy pseudo spiritual approach embraced by so many where religious beliefs trump actions...what we do with what we have been given.
What is acceptable in the decoy churches is the lip-service of Jesus being divine WITHOUT any obedience to Jesus in His humanity. So we are in a quandary...since there is NO balance in the churches of today, should we prefer one half-truth over the other?
When both these are compared...we see aspects of the truth...but no depth or balance. Basically, NOT the gospel. Neither is according to the gospel.
I preach a spiritual Christianity with the church being a spiritual fellowship of Christ followers...who hold to Jesus being BOTH human AND divine.
As such I weigh the ACTIONS of one extreme over the other. In the case of those who seek to follow Jesus' human side...we see so often self-sacrifice, love of others, and willingness to suffer. On the side of the hypocrites who name and claim the divine benefits of Jesus...we see assumptions and presumptions...naming and claiming...claiming to be saved by these...who REFUSE to emulate Jesus in His humanity, disdaining the human Christ by calling obedience to Him...a works salvation. As if all who obeyed Jesus did so for the same selfish reasons they were "accepting" Jesus' sacrifice for themselves. We judge others as WE are, so often.
So which extreme is better? I say, extreme because neither is the truth. Neither is balanced and represents the real Jesus.
Since we will be judged by our works, NOT our beliefs...I would think that DOING what Jesus would do is better than claiming Him as an idol for an afterlife salvation.
Can we condemn the one extreme without also condemning the other? Or are we also invested in naming and claiming and saying that those who follow Jesus' humanity are going to hell for it, as any carnally minded fundamentalist would...thereby justifying the importance of their own ideological opinions? Or is it...he who is not against Me is for Me?
Can we see that followers of Jesus' humanity (social gospel) are challenging us to NOT be hypocritical in our witness to the world?