Is It The Social Gospel To Be About Good Deeds?

The saying “share the Gospel and if necessary use words” implies the good news can be shared through good deeds alone. It is correct to critique this adage as nonsensical, for the Gospel is good news and, therefore, by necessity, requires words to explain what the news is. This distinction between good deeds and good news is categorically valid.

The separation between the doing of good deeds and the sharing of the good news also has, more recently, historic roots in the liberal/fundamentalist controversies of the early twentieth century. Liberal theologians who excised anything supernatural from the history and theology of the Christian faith sought to keep the ethics or the morals of the Christian faith. This liberal theology has been called the social gospel and is captured in the book A Theology for the Social Gospel by Walter Rauschenbusch.

So, in liberal theology, there is no such thing as supernatural conversion granted as a gift from God based on the merit of the substitutionary atonement of the divine Son. Yet, Christian morals and the teaching of Jesus are beneficial and will lead to the progressive betterment of society. Therefore, such liberal theology has no need of the “good news” (that is, telling about what God has done for sinful humanity through the sending of the Son) but rather focuses on good works.

Conservative, evangelical theologians rightly reject this social gospel. But my worry is that, in wanting to rightly distance themselves from liberal theology, evangelical Christians have minimized the Christian responsibility of doing good deeds. For fear of being labeled a “liberal” or being about the “social gospel,” evangelicals minimize their good deeds that benefit society. Or, if we do good deeds, we ensure there is an explicit gospel message tacked onto the doing of our good deeds because we feel like if there isn’t, then our good deeds are empty, and we have fallen prey to the social gospel.

So, for example, if we distribute food, we usually preach the gospel at the end of giving out the food. And if we don’t preach the gospel while doing a good deed, then we think the ministry effort is not good in and of itself. Whether or not this potential bait-and-switch method of doing good and then sharing the gospel is effective, I hope no one thinks I am against preaching the gospel! We should preach the gospel in season and out of season. I am trying to make the point that good deeds are still inherently good by themselves. Here are a few observations to support this.

1. Everyday Life

When a wife asks her husband if he can cook dinner that evening because she’s had a hard day, the husband doesn’t stand at the stove cooking and the sink washing dishes, yelling the gospel at his wife who is lying down in the other room to ensure that he is not a liberal. He must not fall prey to only doing a good deed without the gospel, right?! He must add words to his good deed, or he is only advancing a social gospel, right?! Of course, this is silly. But we imply this in many of the ways we talk about good deeds and the gospel. Good deeds that are motivated by the gospel—Jesus sacrificially laid his life down for us, and we ought to lay our lives down for others—are good deeds without the articulation of the gospel tacked onto the deed.

2. Scripture

Additionally, Jesus talks about the rewards of the believer who gives food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, and clothing to the naked (Matt 25:35-40). These are good deeds, fueled by the Spirit, who causes Christians to lay their lives down and serve others. Of course, a Christian filled with the Spirit will also want to share the good news as the greatest news a person could ever hear and their greatest need. And there will be no doubt rewards for faithful efforts at gospel sharing. But Scripture here teaches that caring for physical needs is inherently good in and of itself and will be rewarded.

Moreover, have you ever been in need and had that need met? Thirsty and a drink provided? Hungry and food provided? Has your family been needy, homeless, or stranded, and have your needs for food and shelter been met? We’ve had homes provided for us while we were without a home, we’ve had meals provided, we’ve had rides given when our car was broken. As other Christians served us, we knew why they served us. They were motivated by the love of Christ. And, I don’t believe in any instance was the “good news” shared with us. As you receive a good deed, does it not feel truly good unless you’ve also had the gospel shared with you? Of course not.

3. Church History

Did William Wilberforce “preach the gospel” every time he was in Parliament advocating for the end of slavery? If he didn’t, was his good deed less? Of course, we know Wilberforce was a Bible-believing Christian, and the biblical view of humans motivated his desire to end slavery; no doubt, dwelling on the gospel of Christ strengthened him to persevere in this task. I’m sure he did share the gospel on many occasions. However, my point, which I hope is obvious by now, is that ending slavery in the United Kingdom was an inherently good deed.

4. World of Missions

As I said, this dichotomy between good news and good works is categorically valid. But functionally, outside of the Western world, they are, by necessity, almost always carried out together. The “good deed” done on the mission field is not a bait-and-switch, done half-heartedly to get to the real work of sharing the good news. But around the world, there are homeless refugees, those oppressed by war, the hungry due to famine, those anguishing under malicious governments, those with real poverty, and those suffering from curable diseases. As Christians go to these areas with the ultimate hope of sharing the good news, they cannot effectively share the good news—which, among other things, is an act of love—without also doing what they can to lovingly and genuinely meet the needs of those suffering around them. These missionaries have not fallen prey to a social gospel. These missionaries are faithful, obedient Christians.

5. Practically

There are also times when the physical need is so urgent that the gospel practically will not be shared at that moment. Perhaps a natural disaster has struck an area, so people are left injured and homeless. Now, with the dying, it is true that the most urgent need is that they hear the good news before they meet their maker. But for those who need shelter and food, the immediate need is to provide shelter and food, and through this genuine act of love and the establishment of relationships, the gospel can be shared. Those who rescue slaves who are held captive to “work” within the sex industry are not sharing the gospel as they storm a building and then make their quick escape. Those trying to prevent women from having abortions in the 60 seconds they have between the parking lot and the “clinic” are focusing on saving the life of the unborn child, not ultimately, in that moment, on the salvation of the mother. These are all good deeds, nonetheless.

Caveat: Good Deeds through the Local Church

There is a valid discussion that seeks to discern whether, or to what extent, the mission of any local church should be engaging its resources (people, money, etc.) into doing good deeds. I’ll leave that foreach pastor to shepherd their congregation through. I resonate with those who argue that the church’s primary ministry is preaching the gospel, feeding God’s sheep through the Word. Hospitals, schools, NGOs, and charities exist to meet other needs. The church should not abandon preaching the gospel to do other deeds since churches are the only entity instituted by Christ for gospel proclamation. And many churches, by keeping this the main focus, will not have the capacity or resources to do anything else. However, in the West, many churches have excess resources and should strategically think about how to use them to do good deeds.

Summary

My goal is not to take away from our gospel preaching ministry but, instead, to free us up to realize good deeds are inherently good. Most Christians living by the Spirit are filled with good deeds anyway when they sacrificially serve others. But typically, when we look to care for the needy in our society, we wrongly worry we will be labeled “liberal” or engaging in the “social gospel.” There’s a false narrative that theological conservatives just preach the gospel and theological liberals do good deeds. But theological conservatives should preach the gospel and do good deeds that adorn their gospel.

If the truth of the Gospel fuels you to love others—even your enemies—and you are ready to preach the gospel in season and out of season, go and do good deeds to the needy around you also without any guilt! And your good deed, if done without sharing the gospel, is still good. Good deeds are categorically and qualitatively different from the good news, but they are still good. Sharing the gospel is the greatest good anyone can do. This post is not a license to never engage in the difficult, awkward, persecuted work of sharing the gospel. But it is a license to engage ever more freely in doing good deeds as opportunity and capacity arise for those around us!

‍